:X 


X-j 


^ 


r-av  >--&*,,•• 


-<  ■" 


:y^sai 


)^^ 


,r  ^,  ^U^- 


Q'.  -..-  ^. 


PRINCETON,  '^.    J. 


Divisiiii . 

Section G  r-^     J     I 


Shelf. Number . 


■  /    /     y        /  /  /^ 

/  -^        / 


/,;• 
V 


CORRECT   NARRATIVE 


OF  THE 


PROCEEDINGS 


OF  THE 


PRESBYTERY  OF  PIIII.ADEL.PHIA, 


RELATIVE  TO  THE 


RECEPTION  AND  INSTALLATION 


OF 


MR.  ALBERT  BARNES  s 


WITH 


THREE  LETTERS  IN  ANSWER  TO  ONE.  RELATIVE  TO 
THE  AFORESAID  PROCEEDINGS. 


BY 

W.  Ii.'M'CAL.L.A, 

Pastor  of  the  Eighth  Presbyterian  Church,  Philadelfihia. 


AUDI    ALTERAM     PARTEM. 


PHILADELPHIA  : 

PRINTED  BY  RUSSELL  &  MARTIExN,  22}  WALNUT  STREET. 
1830. 


TO  THE  PUBLIC. 


It  is  hoped  that  every  reader  of  the  following  publication 
will  keep  constantly  in  mind  that  the  author  has  been  compell- 
ed to  it  in  self-defence.  But  for  this  he  assuredly  would  never 
have  made  it;  nor  given  more  publicity  to  the  proceedings  of 
the  Philadelphia  Presbytery,  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes,  than 
his  trial  itself  occasioned.  Not  a  single  sentence  would  ever 
have  gone  from  him  to  the  press,  nor,  he  verily  believes,  from 
one  of  the  minority,  if  their  opponents  had  kept  silence  on 
their  part.  To  the  writer  it  did  seem,  that  while  the  caso  of 
Mr.  Barnes  was  yet  sub  judice ;  while  a  complaint  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  Presbytery  was  yet  to  be  disposed  of  by  the 
Synod,  and  perhaps  by  the  General  Assembly — the  parties  in 
the  case,  like  those  in  similar  circumstances  when  a  cause  is 
yet  pending  in  a  civil  court,  ought  not  to  endeavour  to  pre- 
occupy and  prejudice  the  public  mind,  on  the  one  side  or  the 
other.  But  if  one  side  will  not  consent  to  this  method  of  pro- 
cedure, the  other  may  at  length  be  obliged,  in  self-defence, 
to  depart  from  it.  Otherwise  the  public  mind  may  become 
prejudiced  against  the  silent  party;  may  even  take  silence  for 
consent;  may  believe  that  nothing  is  said  in  reply,  because 
nothing  to  the  purpose  can  be  said.  Now,  let  it  be  remem- 
bered, that  for  three  months  past,  the  religious  newspapers 
of  our  country,  far  and  near,  have  been  teeming  with  the  ex 
parte  representations  of  the  majority;  and  that  some  of  these 
representations  have  been  collected  into  a  pamphlet,  and  very 
widely  distributed,  under  the  title  of  "A  Sketch  of  the  Debate 
and  Proceedings  of  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  in  regard 
to  the  Installation  of  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  in  the  First 
Presbyterian  Church  in  Philadelphia" — the  pamphlet  to  which 
the  present  publication  chiefly  responds.  Yes,  reader,  for 
three  months  in  succession,  the  minority  saw  and  heard  them- 
selves represented  as  stupid  dolts,  illiberal  bigots,  or  mali- 
cious maligners  of  their  brethren,  and  observed  a  profound 
silence.  And  have  you  thought  that  they  were  silent,  because 
they  were  unable  to  plead  their  own  cause,  or  were  conscious 
that  their  cause  would  not  bear  a  defence?  Nothing  further  from 
the  truth  than  this.  It  was  because  the  minority — I  can  at  least 


(         4  ) 

speak  for  one — had  such  confidence  in  the  superiority  of 
their  arguments  when  they  brought  them  forward  in  the  pres- 
ence of  a  large  assembly  at  the  trial  before  the  Presbytery, 
and  because  they  hoped  that  a  superior  judicature  would  ere 
long  do  them  justice,  that  they  were  willing  to  rest  their 
reputation  and  ultimate  vindication  on  these  grounds,  without 
entering  into  an  altercation  with  their  brethren  in  newspapers 
and  pamphlets.  But  every  thing  has  its  limits — Christian  for- 
bearance itself  will  be  set  down  for  conscious  guilt,  or 
dastardly  cowardice,  if  it  never  speaks  a  word  in  its  own 
defence,  when  insult  and  falsehood  are  heaped  upon  it  with- 
out measure.  When,  therefore,  the  writer  was  most  unexpect- 
edly called  upon  by  the  author  of  the  short  letter  to  which  this 
publication  is  a  reply,  for  "a  statement  of  the  other  side  of 
the  question,"  he  determined  that  he  would  give  it — both  to 
the  letter  writer  and  to  the  public.  This  letter  was  probably 
addressed  to  William  L.  M'Calla,  because  he  had  been  held 
up,  rather  more  than  any  other  individual,  at  one  time  as  an 
object  of  contempt,  and  at  another  of  abhorrence;  and  it  was 
probably  wished  to  hear  what  such  a  man  could  say  for  him- 
self. William  L.  M'Calla  now  says — read  and  see.  He  chal- 
lenges any  opponent  to  deny  a  single  fact  that  he  has  stated, 
and  if  desired,  he  pledges  himself  to  prove  it,  by  as  unques- 
tionable testimony  as  ever  was  demanded  in  a  court  of  law. 
If  in  any  instance  he  has  been  circumstantially  erroneous — 
against  which  he  has  sedulously  endeavoured  to  guard — be 
will  thank  any  one,  friend  or  foe,  to  point  it  out,  and  the  error 
shall  immediately  be  acknowledged  and  corrected.  For  all 
the  remarks  and  strictures  of  the  publication  he  alone  is 
responsible.  Let  it  only  be  recollected  that  no  reserve  as  to 
names  and  pleadings  before  Presbytery,  and  in  the  public 
papers,  was  used  by  those  who  compelled  him  to  write,  and 
that  he  could  not  reply  on  equal  ground  without  throwing  off 
all  reserve,  on  his  part.  He  has  therefore  thrown  it  off — 
always,  however,  feeling  that  he  had  a  sacred  responsibility 
to  his  divine  Master,  not  to  violate  truth,  nor  to  array  even  an 
antagonist  in  darker  colours  than  he  deserved  to  wear;  but 
feeling,  at  the  same  time,  that  this  was  a  case  which  urgently 
demanded  that  the  truth  should  be  told  plainly,  and  that  things 
should  be  called  by  their  proper  names.  If  a  reply  is  attempt- 
ed, he  hopes  the  replicator  will  have  courage  enough  to  appear 
with  his  proper  name. 


NABRATITE 


OF  THE 

PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  PHILADELPHIA  PRESBYTERY, 

IN  HELATIOJf    TO  THE  CASE  OF 

MR.   ALBERT   BARNES. 


[For  the  following  Narrative,  the  -writer  is  indebted  to  a  friend  who  had  am- 
ple opportunities  of  ascertaining  the  facts  in  the  case,  and  he  here  publishes 
It  without  any  alteration.]     ^^.^/Ct  JC^*\^^*^ 

The  debates  in  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  on  the  recep- 
tion and  installation  of  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  have  been  re- 
garded with  unusual  interest  by  nnany,  as  involving  points  of 
great  moment  to  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  relation  both  to 
her  discipline  and  doctrine.  They  have  not  only  furnished  a 
pregnant  theme  for  conversation,  but  a  subject  for  the  essayist 
and  reporter.  Several  of  the  religious  periodicals  have  lent 
their  aid  in  circulating  statements,  from  which  the  spirit  of  im- 
partiality and  equal  justice  has  been  discarded.  Even  in  the 
earliest  stages  of  the  affair,  and  previous  to  any  decision,  this 
course  was  pursued,  with  the  evident  intention  of  prejudicing 
the  public  mind,  and  prc-ducing  an  effect  which  would  influence 
the  final  determination  of  the  Presbytery.  The  truth  should 
never  be  dreaded,  however  loudly  proclaimed  or  widely  dif- 
fused ;  but  when  honest  intentions  are  misrepresented,  and  facts 
are  misstated,  alarm  is  justifiable,  and  passiveness  becomes 
criminal. 

A  pamphlet  lately  published  in  the  city  of  New  York,  pro- 
fesses to  give  an  accurate  and  detailed  history  of  the  debates 
in  question,  in  which  the  names  of  the  speakers  are  mentioned, 
and  abstracts  of  their  speeches  furnished.  The  writer  of  it,  in 
our  opinion,  was  totally  disqualified  for  his  task  ;  a  disqualifi- 
cation arising  either  from  entire  ignorance  of  his  subject,  or  a 
determined  dishonesty  in  its  exhibition.  He  alike  conceals  the 
weak  points  of  the  majority  and  the  strong  points  of  the  mino- 
rity. He  has  betrayed  little  capacity  for  comprehending  the 
argument,  and  less  discretion  in  piiblishing  his  incompetency. 
In  a  word,  the  sketch  contains  just  sufficient  colouring  of 
truth,  to  give  plausibility  to  general  misrepresentation.  Many, 
however,  may  receive  his  report  as  true,  until  they  are  fur- 
nished with  more  authentic  information  ;  and  to  supply  this, 
we   have   been  reluctantly  compelled  to  abandon  the   reserve 


(      ^     ) 

which  we  had  intended  to  observe  whilst  the  case  was  under 
judgment.  A  report  of  speeches  which  occupied  a  debate  of 
seven  days  continuance,  is  not  our  intention.  Such  a  report, 
to  be  honest,  should  be  full,  and  would  not  only  be  tedious,  but 
at  this  time,  impracticable  ;  and  we  should  consider  our  can- 
dour and  integrity  in  jeopardy  by  an  imitation  of  the  writer  of 
the  "  Sketch,"  who  reports  a  long  speech  in  three  unmeaning 
lines  of  a  pamphlet.  We  must,  however,  be  excused  in  follow- 
ing his  example  in  one  particular ;  we  mean  his  freedom  in  the 
use  of  names.  In  exercising  this  privilege  for  the  purpose  of 
rendering  our  narrative  intelligible,  it  will  be  our  aim  to  "  ren- 
der to  Csesar  the  things  which  are  Caesar's,"  avoiding  the  charge 
of  libel,  except  where  the  truth  may  be  construed  into  libel. 
This  much  being  premised,  we  proceed  to  give  the  promised 
detail  of  circumstances  in  the  order  of  their  occurrence. 

In  the  month  of it  became  the  subject  of  common 

conversation,  that  thfe^^reftPwiSJjj^rian  Church  of  this  city 
were  directing  their  attention  to  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  of 
Morristown,  N.  J.  with  the  intention  of  presenting  him  a  call  to 
become  their  Pastor.  His  talents,  ministerial  fidelity,  and  suc- 
cess, were  spoken  of  in  terms  of  high  commendation.  At  the 
same  time,  it  was  notorious  that  the  candidate  had  never  occu- 
pied the  pulpit  of  the  First  Church,  and  that  with  the  exception 
of  a  kw  individuals,  the  congregation  were  entirely  ignorant, 
as  far  as  their  personal  experience  was  concerned,  of  his  minis- 
terial qualifications.  In  addition  to  the  verbal  testimony  of 
friends,  a  sermon  preached  and  published  by  Mr.  Barnes,  was 
referred  to  in  proof  of  his  ability.  This  was  freely  circulated 
among  the  congregation,  and  the  commendations  bestowed 
upon  it  naturally  excited  the  curiosity  of  many  not  connected 
with  this  Church,  to  see  and  peruse  it.  A  rumour  was  at  length 
heard,  that  this  sermon  contained  errors  in  doctrine,  which 
placed  it  in  direct  conflict  with  the  doctrinal  standards  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  and  the  truth  of  the  rumour  was  shortly 
afterwards  confirmed  in  a  review*  of  the  sermon,  published  in 
the  "  Philadelphian."  This  review  proposed  to  place  the  ser- 
mon of  Mr.  Barnes  and  the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith  in 
juxta-position,  that  the  discrepancies  between  them  might  be 
observed  at  a  glance.  This  publication  was  decryed  as  an  un- 
generous and  malignant  personal  attack  upon  the  author  of  the 
sermon,  although  it  speaks  for  itself,  as  a  temperate  exercise  of 
a  right  which  every  individual  possesses,  of  canvassing  the 
merits  of  any  published  document.     A  reply  from  the  pen  of 

*  The  writer  of  this  review  was  the  Rev.  Wm.  M.  Engles,  whose  name 
was  revealed  by  the  Editor,  the  Rev.  Dr.  El)',  to  certain  gentlemen  belong- 
ing to  the  First  Church,  who  had  taken  umbrage  at  the  review.  This  was 
done  without  his  concurrence,  and  he  felt  that  he  had  reason  to  complain, 
that  persons  totally  unauthorised  to  make  the  demand,  and  who  were  disposed 
to  make  an  ungenerous  use  of  the  information,  should  have  been  gratified  by 
the  Editor  at  the  first  expresMon  of  their  wish. 


(  7  ) 

t 

the  Rev.  Dr.  Wilson  soon  appeared,  and  a  controversy  of  consi- 
derable length  between  him  and  the  reviewer  was  conducted 
and  published  in  the  same  periodical. 

In  the  mean  time,  a  congregational  meeting  had  been  held 
in  the  First  Church,  and  a  call  was  determined  upon  for  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Barnes.  According  to  constitutional  provision,  it  was 
necessary  that  this  call  should  be  submitted  to  the  Presbytery, 
that  they  might  grant  or  withhold  their  permission  for  its  pro- 
secution before  the  Presbytery  of  Elizabethtown,  of  which  Mr. 
Barnes  was  a  member.  At  this  stage,  the  ecclesiastical  pro- 
ceedings in  the  case  commenced.  When  the  call  was  present- 
ed before  the  Presbytery,  at  their  stated  meeting  in  April,  and 
permission  asked  by  the  commissioners  to  prosecute  it,  the  ve- 
nerable Dr.  Green  arose,  and  with  a  manner  characterised  by 
kindness  and  courtesy,  solicited  the  attention  of  the  judicatory 
whilst  he  detailed  the  reasons  which  would  induce  him  to  give 
a  negative  vote  on  the  motion  then  pending.  These  reasons, 
he  said,  were  founded  upon  Mr.  Barnes'  doctrinal  errors,  as 
they  had  been  recently  proclaimed  to  the  world  in  his  printed 
sermon,  and  upon  which  he  proposed  briefly  to  animadvert. 
His  attempt,  however,  was  hastily  interrupted  by  a  comparatively 
youthful  member  of  the  Presbytery,  (Mr.  Biggs)  who  affirmed  it 
to  be  both  irregular  and  unkind,  to  make  the  sermon  a  ground 
of  judgment,  as  it  would  virtually  amount  to  an  arraignment 
and  trial  of  Mr.  Barnes  for  heresy,  whilst  he  was  beyond  the 
jurisdiction  of  Presbytery.  A  motion  to  this  effect  was  made 
and  seconded,  and  a  debate  of  considerable  length  and  anima- 
tion ensued  on  the  point  of  order.  On  the  one  side,  it  was 
contended  that  a  congregation  had  an  unquestionable  right  to 
call  any  favourite  candidate,  provided  his  standing  was  regular 
in  a  co-ordinate  judicatory,  and  that  it  was  an  arbitrary  stretch 
of  authority  to  interfere  with  that  right  upon  any  grounds  ;  that 
the  presentation  of  a  call  to  Presbytery  did  not  imply  a  right 
in  them  to  adjudicate,  but  was  merely  a  pro  forma  proceeding  ; 
and  that  to  urge  objections  to  a  call,  grounded  upon  the  doc- 
trinal delinquencies  of  a  candidate,  however  proclaimed  in  his 
writings,  was  extra-judicial^  whilst  he  remained  unimpeached  in 
the  Presbytery  to  which  he  regularly  appertained.  On  the 
other  side,  it  was  maintained  that  a  congregation  which  had 
voluntarily  subjected  itself  to  the  jurisdiction  of  a  Presbytery, 
had  no  such  independent  right  as  that  which  was  pleaded  ; 
that  their  right  to  call  was  not  more  clearly  demonstrable  than 
the  right  of  Presbytery  to  object  and  refuse  permission  to  pro- 
ceed to  subsequent  steps;  that  the  very  fact  of  submitting  a 
call  to  Presbytery  for  approval,  implied  the  right  of  disapproval, 
and  so  far  from  being  a  mere  pro  forma  proceeding,  was  a 
direct  acknowledgment  of  jurisdiction ;  and,  finally,  that  if 
members  of  a  Presbytery  had  a  right  to  vote  upon  such  a  ques- 
tion, they  had  a  right  also  to  state  the  reasons  which  determin- 


ed  their  vote,  and  if  these  reasons  were  deduced  from  an  au- 
thentic printed  document,  they  neither  violated  the  constitution 
of  the  church  nor  the  laws  of  brotherly  kindness  in  urging  them. 
The  argument  being  finished,  it  was  decided  by  a  vote  of  thirty- 
seven  to  ten,  that  it  was  perfectly  regular  for  the  members  of 
Presbytery  to  raise  objections  to  the  prosecution  of  the  call 
from  Mr.  Barnes'  printed  sermon  ;  the  Rev.  Dr.  M'Auley  and 
Messrs.  Patterson,  Belville,  Biggs,  Sandford,  and  Hoover  being 
the  only  ministers  who  dissented.  The  attempt  to  enforce  the 
gag  law  upon  Presbytery  having  thus  happily  failed,  the  sermon 
of  Mr.  Barnes  was  read  entire  before  Presbytery,  by  its  order, 
and  the  debate  then  proceeded  upon  the  original  motion,  "  Shall 
the  call  be  prosecuted*?"  The  discussion  of  this  question  was 
protracted  and  singular  in  a  high  degree.  Those  who  are  now 
known  as  the  "minority,"  met  the  question  fearlessly  upon  its  doc- 
trinal merits,  and  opposed  the  call  because  Mr.  Barnes  had  recent- 
ly published  a  Sermon  on  the  Way  of  Salvation,  in  which, 

1 .  He  makes  no  mention  of  the  cardinal  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion by  faith. 

2.  In  which  he  contemptuously  rejects  the  doctrine  of  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin. 

3.  In  which  he  intimates  that  the  first  moral  taint  of  the 
creature  is  coincident  with  his  first  moral  action. 

4.  In  which  he  denies  that  Christ  sustained  the  penalty  of  the 
law,  and  employs  language  on  the  subject  highly  derogatory  to 
the  character  of  Christ. 

5.  In  which  he  boldly  aflSrms  that  the  atonement  of  Christ 
had  no  specific  reference  to  individuals. 

6.  In  which  he  declares,  that  the  Atonement  in  itself  secured 
the  Salvation  of  no  Man,  and  possessed  only  a  conditional 
efficacy. 

7.  In  which  he  maintains  that  the  entire  inability  of  the  sin- 
ner for  holy  actions  consisted  in  indisposition  of  the  will ;  and, 
finally,  in  which  he  declares  his  independence  of  all  formularies 
of  doctrine,  notwithstanding  his  professed  adherence  to  them.* 

*  It  was  thought  by  the  minority,  that  these  were  not  the  comfiaratively 
venial  errors  of  Hopkinsianism,  but  the  more  dangerous  ones  of  Murdock, 
Taylor,  and  Fitch,  which  have  recently  been  grafted  on  the  original  stock. 

Professor  Woods  of  Andover,  in  his  late  admirable  reply  to  some  points  in 
the  sfieculative,  fihilosofihical  religion  of  Dr.  Taylor,  coincides  precisely  with 
the  minority  of  the  Philadelphia  Presbytery,  in  estimating  the  doctrines  of  the 
New  Haven  School.  He  considers  them  as  in  a  high  degree  erroneous  and 
dangerous.  His  language  in  the  98th  page  of  his  Letters,  justly  expresses  the 
view  by  which  the  minority  were  influenced  in  their  proceedings.  It  is  as 
follows  ;  "  Whether  right  or  wrong,  we  have  been  accustomed  to  consider  the 
controversy  which  early  arose  in  the  Church  between  the  Orthodox  and  Pela- 
gians, and  which,  after  the  Reformation,  was  continued  between  the  Lutherans 
and  Calvinists  on  one  side,  and  the  Arminians  or  Remonstrants  on  the  other, 
as  of  radical  importance.  Now,  how  would  you  expect  us  to  feel,  and,  with 
our  convictions,  how  ought  we  to  feel,  when  a  brother,  luho  has  firofessed  to  be 
decidedly  Orthodox,  makes  an  attack  ufion  several  of  the  articles  of  our  faiths 
and  emfiloys  language  on  the  subject  of  moral  agency,  free  "will,  depravity. 


(       9       ; 

In  addition  to  these  reasons,  it  was  also  incidentally  objected 
that  the  call  was  irregularly  framed,  omitting  one  important 
clause  of  the  form,  which  is  in  these  words,  "and  having  good 
hopes,  from  our  past  experience  of  your  labours."  The  fact  was, 
that  the  congregation  had  no  past  experience  of  the  labours  of 
the  candidate,  as  they  had  never  heard  him  preach;  and  this 
fact,  which  induced  the  remarkable  omission,  accounted  also  for 
another  fact,  that  hut  fifty  votes  were  given  for  the  call,  out  of 
more  than  two  hundred  and  twenty  in  the  congregation  who 
were  legally  entitled  to  vote. 

On  the  part  of  the  majority  of  Presbytery,  the  debate  was 
conducted  in  a  truly  novel  manner.  With  the  single  exception 
of  Thomas  Bradford,  Esq.  who  honestly  avowed  his  coincidence 
of  sentiment  with  Mr.  Barnes  upon  Ho()kinsian  ground,  there 
was  a  studious  and  persevering  endeavour  to  avoid  the  doctri- 
nal discussion.  The  Rev.  Dr.  M'Auley  admitted  that  the  ser- 
mon contained  some  things  which  were  not  true,  some  that  were 
equivocal,  and  some  that  were  unhappily  expressed;  but  he 
maintained  that  we  had  nothing  to  do  with  Mr.  Barnes'  doctrinal 
sentiments,  although  the  Presbytery  had  just  decided  the  valid- 
ity of  such  a  scrutiny.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Sandford  occupied  the 
same  ground,  substantially,  and  hoped  that  he  might  not  be 
considered  as  giving  any  opinion  upon  the  doctrinal  question. 
The  remarks  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Ely  were  written  at  length,  and 
read  before  the  Presbytery,  and  the  tenor  of  them  was,  that 
although  there  were  many  things  in  the  Sermon  which  appeared 
suspicious,  yet,  with  a  little  of  his  interpretative  and  explana- 
tory aid,  they  could  be  reconciled  with  orthodoxy.  But  the  all- 
powerful  argument  which  appeared  to  be  most  relied  upon,  if 
we  judge  from  its  frequent  reiteration,  was,  that  Mr.  Barnes  had 
the  confidence  of  many  excellent  men,  that  he  was  an  exem- 
plary Christian,  and  that  he  had  been  a  successful  preacher  of 
the  Gospel!  This  furnished  a  prolific  topic  for  declamation,  and 
the  understandings  of  the  Presbyters  were  forgotten  in  the  anx- 
iety to  affect  and  enlist  their  feelings.  A  persecuted  saint, 
assailed  in  his  character  and  impeded  in  his  career  of  usefulness, 
was  a  picture,  it  would  seem,  too  affecting  for  the  judgment  of 
some  men  to  withstand.  Whether  such  appeals  were  honourable 
in  a  doctrinal  discussion  of  this  kind,  the  candid  reader  is  left 
to  decide.  But  this  was  not  all,  attempts  were  made  to  overawe 
the  minority.  They  were  told  that  the  world  had  already  sounded 
the  alarm  of  ecclesiastical  domination  and  tyranny — that  the 
discussion  was  doing  great  disservice  to  the  cause  of  religion 
in  the  community  at  large — that  public  sentiment  was  too  en- 
lightened and  liberal  to  countenance  such  inquisitorial  proceed- 
ings— that  the  call  in  question  was  from  the  First  Presbyterian 

divine  bijlueiicc,  cS'c.  which  is  .10  like  the  language  of  ylrminians  and  Fela 
gians,  that  it  ivould  rerjuire  some  labour  to  discover  the  difference?'^ 

B 


Church  in  Philadelphia— and  that  that  respectable  and  impor- 
tant congregation  would  secede  if  their  wish  was  denied,  and 
last,  though  not  least,  for  its  preposterousness — that  the  First 
Church  would  decline  any  future  contributions  to  the  Board  of 
Missions,  because  the  Rev.  Dr.  Green  and  the  Rev.  Joshua  T. 
Russell,  the  President  and  the  General  Agent  of  that  Board, 
were  members  of  the  minority!*  Arguments  of  this  class,  how- 
ever they  might  indicate  the  policy,  certainly  did  little  credit 
to  the  understandings  of  those  who  broached  ihem.  They  doubt- 
less produced  an  effect  upon  some  minds;  it  soon  became 
apparent  that  there  was  a  popular  and  an  unpopular  side  to  the 
question,  and  those  who  were  unwilling  to  encounter  reproach, 
and  submit  to  misrepresentation,  had  their  resort. 

The  motion  was  at  length  put  to  the  house,  "Shall  the  com- 
missioners have  leave  to  prosecute  the  calH"  and  it  was  carried 
in  the  affirmative,  by  a  vote  of  twenty-one  to  twelve.  The 
minority  then  recorded  the  following  Protest,  and  the  Presby- 
tery adjourned. 

PROTEST. 

We,  the  minority  in  the  above  case,  do  hereby  protest 
against  the  foregoing  decision  for  the  reasons  following,  viz: 

The  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  the  person  to  whom  the  call  from 
the  First  Presbyterian  Church  was  directed,  in  a  Sermon  preach- 
ed, and  lately  published  by  him,  accompanied  by  notes,  which 
he  has  entitled  "The  Way  of  Salvation,"  and  in  which  he  pro- 
fesses to  give  "  the  leading  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  respecting 
God's  way  of  saving  men,"  has,  as  we  conceive,  broached  errors, 
which  we,  as  guardians  of  the  purity  of  the  Church,  cannot,  in 
any  way,  countenance  ;  because  we  believe  them  to  be  opposed 
to  the  doctrinal  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  in 
their  tendency,  exceedingly  dangerous ;  as  will  be  seen  from 
the  following  particulars,  viz. 

1.  It  is  believed  by  the  undersigned  that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes 
has  denied  in  this  Sermon,  with  its  accompanying  notes,  the 
fundamental  doctrine  of  original  sin,  as  plainly  and  expressly 
taught  in  the  standards  of  our  Church.  So  far  from  admitting 
the  federal  and  representative  character  of  Adam,  and  our  res- 
ponsibility in  him,  he  says  at  page  6,  "Christianity  does  not 
charge  on  men  crimes  of  which  they  are  not  guilty.  It  does  not 

♦We  had  regarded  this  as  an  idle  threat,  incautiously  uttered,  but  we  have 
since  learned  that  an  individual  of  that  congregation,  who  had  pledged  himself 
in  the  100  dollar  subscription,  has  since  declined  to  redeem  his  pledge! 

Mr.  Russell,  from  his  former  associations,  was  well  qualified  to  engage  in 
this  debate,  and  expose  the  dangerous  speculations  of  the  new  school  divinity. 
This  he  did  witli  much  force  and  ability,  and  this,  we  are  glad  to  say,  he  con- 
tinued to  do,  although  reminded  that  a  calculating  fiolicy  would  best  subserve 
his  official  success  in  the  management  of  the  Assembly's  Missions. 


(     11     ) 

say,  as  I  suppose,  that  the  sinner  is  held  to  be  personally  answer- 
able for  the  transgressions  of  Adam  or  of  any  other  man,  or 
that  God  has  given  a  law  which  man  has  no  power  to  obey. 
Such  a  charge  and  such  a  requirement  would  be  most  clearly 
unjust.^''  And  again,  at  page  7,  he  says,  "  neither  the  facts, 
nor  any  proper  inference  from  the  facts,  affirm  that  I  am  in 
either  case  personally  responsible  for  ivhat  another  man  did 
before  I  had  an  existence."  Again,  in  the  same  page,  he  asserts, 
that  *'  the  notion  of  imputing  sin  is  an  invention  of  modern 
times."  And  again,  in  the  same  page,  he  says,  "Christianity 
affirms  the  fact,  that  in  connexion  with  the  sin  of  Adam,  or  as  a 
result,  all  moral  agents  will  sin  and  sinning  will  die ;"  and  then 
proceeds  to  say,  "  It  docs  not  affirm,  however,  any  thing  about 
the  mode  in  which  this  would  be  done.  There  are  many  ways 
conceivable  in  which  that  sin  might  secure  the  result,  as  there 
are  many  ways  in  which  all  similar  facts  may  be  explained. 
The  drunkard  commonly  secures  as  a  result,  the  fact  that  his 
family  will  be  beggared,  illiterate,  perhaps  profane  or  intem- 
perate. Both  facts  are  evidently  to  be  explained  on  the  same 
principle  as  a  part  of  moral  government."  Here,  it  is  conceived, 
the  author  of  the  Sermon  represents  the  effects  of  Adam's  fall 
upon  his  posterity  as  their  misfortune  and  not  as  their  sin.  And 
the  Protestants  do  further  consider  it  to  be  implied  in  the  state- 
ments of  the  Sermon,  that  infants  are  sinless  until  in  the  exer- 
cise of  moral  agency  they  do  positively,  by  their  own  act,  violate 
the  law.  Vide  Con.  of  Faith,  cap.  vi.  and  Catechism  Larger  and 
Shorter,  on  Art.   "Original  Sin." 

2.  On  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  the  Protestants  believe 
that  Mr.  Barnes  maintains  sentiments  which  are  in  direct  contra- 
diction to  those  set  forth  in  out  doctrinal  standards.  At  page 
1 1,  he  says,  "  This  atonement  was  for  all  men.  It  was  an  offer- 
ing made  for  the  race.  It  had  not  respect  so  much  to  individuals 
as  to  the  law  and  perfections  of  God.  It  was  an  opening  of  the 
way  of  pardon,  a  making  forgiveness  consistent,  a  preserving 
of  truth,  a  magnifying  of  the  law,  and  had  no  particular  refer- 
ence to  any  class  of  men." 

Again,  at  page  11,  he  says,  "  The  atonement  of  itself  secured 
the  salvation  of  no  one;"  and  again,  "The  atonement  secured 
the  salvation  of  no  one,  except  as  God  had  promised  his  Son 
that  he  should  see  of  the  travail  of  his  soul,  and  except  on  the 
condition  of  repentance  and  faith."  Vide  Con.  of  Faith,  cap. 
viii.  5  and  8. 

Again,  at  page  10,  he  says  Christ  "did  not  endure  indeed  the 
penalty  of  the  law;"  and  again,  page  11,  he  says,  "Christ's 
sufferings  were  severe,  more  severe  than  those  of  any  mortal 
before  or  since;  but  they  bore,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  only  a  very 
distant  resemblance  to  the  pains  of  hell,  the  proper  penalty  of 
the  law.  Nor  is  it  possible  to  conceive  that  the  sufferings  of  a 
few  hours,  however  severe,   could  equal  pains,  though  far  less 


(  12  ) 

intense,  eternally  prolonged.  Still  less  that  the  sufferings  of 
human  nature,  in  a  single  instance,  for  the  divine  nature  could 
not  suffer,  should  be  equal  to  the  eternal  pain  of  many  millions." 
Vide  Larger  Cat.  Q.  38. 

In  all  this  language  the  Protestants  do  sincerely  believe,  that 
Mr.  Barnes  denies  that  Jesus  Christ  was  a  vicarious  sacrifice — 
that  his  atonement  had  a  definite  design — that  it  was  in  itself 
efficacious — and  that  it  was  a  proper  satisfaction  to  divine  jus- 
tice for  the  sins  of  his  elect. 

3.  In  this  Sermon,  the  Protestants  believe  that  Mr.  Barnes 
employs  language  on  the  subject  of  man's  ability,  which  is  con- 
trary to  the  standards  of  our  Church. 

In  speaking  of  sinners  rejecting  the  Gospel,  he  says,  page 
14,  "  It  is  not  to  any  want  of  physical  strength,  that  this  rejec- 
tion is  owing,  for  men  have  power  enough  in  themselves  to  hate 
both  God  and  their  fellow  men,  and  it  requires  less  physical 
power  to  love  God  than  to  hate  him;"  and  on  the  same  page, 
he  evidently  insinuates  that  man's  sole  inability  is  in  the  will, 
and  the  principal  effect  of  conversion  upon  the  will.  Again, 
page  30,  in  speaking  of  the  causes  which  exclude  a  sinner  from 
heaven,  he  says,  "  It  is  simply  because  you  will  not  he  saved." 
The  Protestants  believe  that  to  ascribe  man's  inability  to  the 
will  alone,  is  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  our  Church.  Vide 
Con.  of  Faith,  cap.  vi.  4. 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  reasons  founded  on  the  doctri- 
nal errors  advanced  in  the  Sermon,  we  protest  also,  because, 

1.  In  the  forecited  Sermon,  professing  to  give  a  summary  of 
leading  doctrines  relating  to  man's  salvation,  no  mention  what- 
ever is  made  of  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  through  the 
imputed  righteousness  of  Christ,  a  defect,  which,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, cannot  well  be  accounted  for,  except  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  it  was  not  received  by  the  author;  and 

2.  Because  the  author  of  the  Sermon  makes  certain  general 
declarations  which  induce  us  to  believe,,  that  he  does  not  proper- 
ly regard  his  obligation  to  adhere  to  the  doctrinal  standards  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church.  Thus,  at  page  6,  he  says  in  relation 
to  one  of  his  statements,  "  It  is  not  denied  that  this  language 
varies  from  the  statements  which  are  often  made  on  this  subject, 
and  from  the  opinion  which  has  been  entertained  by  many. 
And  it  is  admitted  that  it  does  not  accord  icith  that  used  on  the 
same  subject  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  other  standards  of 
doctrine."  And,  again  at  page  12,  he  says,  "The  great  princi- 
ple on  which  the  author  supposes  the  truths  of  religion  are  to  be 
preached,  and  on  which  he  endeavours  to  act,  is,  that  the  Bible  is 
to  be  interpreted  by  all  the  honest  helps  within  the  reach  of  the 
preacher,  and  then  proclaimed  as  it  is,  let  it  lead  where  it  will 
within  or  without  the  circumference  of  any  arrangement  of  doc- 
trines. He  is  supposed  to  be  responsible  not  at  all  for  its  im- 
pinging on  any  theological  system  ;  nor  is  he  to  be  cramped  by 
any  frame-work  of  faith  that  has  been  reared  around  the  Bible." 


(         13         ) 

And  we  do  hereby  furllier  protest  against  the  forementioned 
decision,  because, 

1.  We  believe,  for  the  reasons  stated  above,  that  the  decision 
will  prove  injurious  to  the  purity  of  the  Cliurch,  and  to  the  best 
interests  of  religion  :  and, 

2.  Because,  notwithstanding  it  had  been  decided  on  a  pre- 
vious question,  by  a  vote  of  37  to  10,  that  it  was  the  right  of 
Presbytery  in  examining  the  qualifications  of  their  own  mem- 
bers, to  bring  the  said  printed  Sermon  of  Mr.  Barnes  under 
review,  and  to  draw  thence  arguments  for  or  against  the  prose- 
cution of  the  call;  yet  in  the  final  vote,  a  number  of  those  who 
voted  in  the  majority,  whilst  expressing  their  dissent  from  Mr. 
Barnes'  doctrines,  declared  that  they  were  guided  in  their  vote, 
by  the  consideration  that  Presbytery  had  no  right  to  inquire  into 
Mr.  Barnes'  theological  views,  or  to  make  them  a  ground  of 
objection  to  the  prosecution  of  the  call. 

For  these  reasons,  we  consider  it  our  solemn  duty  to  protest 
against  that  decision,  which  granted  leave  to  the  commissioners 
from  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  to  prosecute  a  call  for  the 
Rev.  Albert  Barnes  before  the  Presbytery  of  Elizabethtown. 
(Signed) 

Ministers. — Ashbel  Green,  George  C.  Potts,  John  Burtt, 
Joshua  T.  Russell,  Alvin  H.  Parker,  W.  L.  M'Calla,  William 
M.  Engles,  Charles  Williamson. 

Elders. — Andw.  Brown,  Jos.  P.  Engles,  James  Algeo,  Moses 
Reed. 

A  special  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  was  held  on  the  18th  of 
June  following,  "  for  the  purpose  of  considering  the  subject  of 
the  reception  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes,  and  to  do  what  may  be 
deemed  proper  in  his  installation."  This  meeting  was  held  in 
the  Lecture  room  of  the  First  Church,  and  was  numerously  at- 
tended by  Presbyters  and  spectators.  The  indelicacy  of  aban- 
doning the  usual  place  of  meeting,  and  selecting  this  location, 
might  be  a  subject  of  just  comment;  but  if  it  had  a  design  to 
influence,  it  totally  failed;  the  minority  neither  retracted  nor 
modified  their  ground.  The  following  extract  from  the  minutes 
of  Presbytery  will  show  how  the  business  was  introduced  at  this 
stage.  "  The  Rev.  Albeit  Barnes  presented  a  certificate  of  dis- 
mission from  the  Presbytery  of  Elizabethtown  to  join  the 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia.  The  minutes  of  the  Presbytery  at 
their  last  stated  meeting  in  relation  to  the  case  of  the  Rev. 
Albert  Barnes,  were  then  read.  It  was  then  moved  and  seconded, 
that  Mr.  Barnes  be  received  as  a  member  of  this  Presbytery; 
and  after  some  discussion,  it  was  moved  (by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Ely,) 
and  seconded,  that  the  motion  now  under  consideration  be  post- 
poned, that  before  deciding  on  it,  any  brother  of  the  Presbytery 
who  may  deem  it  necessary,  may  ask  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes 
such  explanations  of  his  doctrinal  views  as  said  brethren  may 


(         14         ) 

deem  necessary."  Here  the  question  determining  the  right  of 
a  Presbytery  to  examine  the  qualifications  of  those  proposing  to 
become  members,  by  dismission  from  a  co-ordinate  judicatory 
was  brought  prominently  under  debate,  although  it  had  been 
virtually  decided  in  the  affirmative  by  the  first  vote  of  the  Pres- 
bytery at  their  April  sessions.  The  right  was  strenuously  con- 
tended for  on  the  one  side  as  one  recognized  by  the  constitu- 
tion; as  clearly  ascertained  by  various  decisions  of  the  General 
Assembly;  as  inherent  in  Presbyteries  as  radical  courts;  as 
necessary  as  a  safeguard  against  the  rapid  spread  of  error;  and 
as  essential  to  preserve  the  proceedings  of  a  Presbytery  against 
foreign  interference.  The  argument  on  the  other  side,  was  the 
mere  and  confident  denial  of  all  these  principles,  as  calculated 
to  bring  Presbyteries  into  conflict,  and  thus  to  interrupt  the 
peace  of  the  Church.  Strange  as  it  may  appear,  assertion  pre- 
vailed over  demonstration,  and  the  right  of  Presbytery  to  exa- 
mine the  qualifications  of  its  own  members,  was  denied,  by  a 
vote  of  twenty  to  eighteen,  twelve  ministers  voting  in  the  affirm- 
ative and  twelve  in  the  negative.  The  original  motion  for  Mr. 
Barnes'  admission  being  again  brought  under  consideration,  it 
was  moved  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Engles,  that  the  motion  naw  under 
consideration  be  postponed  with  a  view  to  take  up  the  following  : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  certificate  presented  to  this  Presbytery 
by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes,  from  the  Presbytery  of  Elizabethtown, 
be  sent  back  to  the  Presbytery  of  Elizabethtown,  with  an 
attested  copy  of  all  the  minutes  of  this  Presbytery  in  relation 
to  his  case,  with  a  request  that  the  said  Presbytery  will  consider 
and  decide  upon  those  doctrinal  statements  contained  in  a 
printed  sermon  of  Mr.  Barnes,  which  are  referred  to  in  a  Pro- 
test signed  by  a  minority  of  this  Presbytery,  and  which  are 
considered  as  grounds  of  objection  to  his  admission  into  this 
Presbytery." 

The  majority  had,  in  the  course  of  argument,  indicated  this  as 
the  proper  resort  of  the  minority,  but  now  feeling  themselves  to 
be  sufficiently  strong  to  carry  all  their  measures,  they  changed 
their  views  and  negatived  the  motion.  The  debate  on  Mr. 
Barnes'  reception  vvas  then  commenced  anew. 

To  report  speeches  is  not  our  intention;  but  we  cannot  refrain 
from  adverting  to  that  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  M'Calla,  as  an  able  and 
masterly  defence  of  orthodoxy,  in  opposition  to  the  spurious 
theology  of  New  England,  and  to  that  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Green, 
as  the  solemn  warning  of  the  sole  representative  of  the  fathers 
of  our  church,  now  fallen  asleep,  who,  having  observed  the  dis- 
astrous decline  of  the  once  glorious  churches  of  France,  Swit- 
zerland, and  Ireland,  could  not  suppress  his  grief  in  remarking 
on  the  present  occasion,  the  same  false  spirit  of  liberality  ;  the 
same  unbounded  latitude  of  interpretation,  and  the  same  unwil- 
lingness to  arrest  error  in  its  commencement  which  had  brought 
on  their  eclipse.  At  this  stage  of  the  business,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Ely, 
who  had  strenuously  defended  the  right  of  Presbytery  to  exa- 


I  10  ) 

mine  Mr.  Barnes,  arose,  and  stated  that  he  purposed  to  vote  for 
the  reception  of  Mr.  Barnes,  because,  from  a  private  interview, 
he  was  convinced  of  his  general  orthodoxy,  in  proof  of  which, 
he  read  a  written  creed  prepared  by  himself,  and  adopted  and 
signed  by  Mr.  Barnes.  This  was  a  proceeding,  in  our  opinion, 
alike  discreditable  to  both  parties;  the  dignity  of  Mr.  Barnes 
was  compromised  in  submitting  to  have  his  views  explained  by 
another,  when  he  was  so  earnestly  solicited  to  improve  the  most 
favourable  opportunity  of  doing  it  himself,  and  the  dignity  of 
Dr.  Ely  suffered  in  condescending  to  string  together  a  set  of 
nicely  adjusted  phrases,  which,  however  orthodox  their  aspect, 
were  evidently  intended  to  cover  two  schemes  of  totally  dif- 
ferent characters.*  It  is  with  reluctance  that  we  advert  to  such 
transactions,  but  we  wish  our  narrative  to  be  recommended  by 
its  truth.  The  vote  was  eventually  taken  by  ayes  and  noes,  on 
the  motion  for  receiving  Mr.  Barnes,  and  decided  in  the  affir- 
mative, sixteen  ministers  and  fourteen  elders  voting  in  the 
affirmative,  and  nine  ministers  and  seven  elders  in  the  negative. 
A  paper  was  then  presented  to  the  moderator,  containing 
charges  against  Mr.  Barnes,  for  his  unsoundness  in  the  faith 
and  in  arrest  of  his  installation.  The  moderator,  however,  de- 
cided it  to  be  out  of  order,  as  originating  a  new  business  at  a 
pro  re  nata  meeting.  This  opinion  was  appealed  from  by  Dr. 
Ely,  but  the  appeal  was  not  sustained.  He,  and  at  least  two 
others  of  the  majority,  contended  that  the  mere  announcement 
from  the  moderator  of  the  existence  of  such  a  paper  of  charges, 
was  a  sufficient  bar  to  the  installation,  and  yet  immediately 
afterwards,  they  surmounted  the  bar  and  voted  for  the  installa- 
tion, f     Strange  occurrences  take  place  in  over  anxiety  to  give 

*  It  is  true,  that  Mr.  Barnes  did,  on  one  occasion,  rise  and  promise  to  make 
some  explanations  of  his  doctrinal  views.  This  he  said  he  would  do  volunta- 
rily, but  not  in  compliance  with  a  demand,  which  he  was  convinced  Pres- 
bytery had  no  right  to  make.  The  minority  were  pleased  with  the  promise, 
although  Mr.  Barnes  was  careful  to  represent  it  as  a  mere  concession  of  cour- 
tesy ;  but  at  the  manner  in  which  he  fulfilled  it,  they  were  not  only  disap- 
pointed, but  surprised.  It  is  doubtful  if  he  occupied  the  floor  iovjive  minutes, 
and  in  that  time  explanations  could  not  have  been  expected,  much  less  satis- 
factory ones.  He  acknowledged,  it  is  true,  that  his  sermon  was  defective, 
through  oversight,  on  the  doctrine  of  justification,  (an  acknowledgment  which 
the  "  Sketch"  hasforgotten  to  record)  but  what  he  said  in  brevity,  on  the 
other  disputed  points,  only  tended  to  increase  the  suspicion,  and  confirm  the 
conviction  of  his  error,  in  the  minds  of  the  minority. 

t  Upon  the  presentation  of  this  paper  by  Mr.  Hoff,  (whose  manner  in  this 
whole  transaction  was  characterized  by  firmness  and  decision)  a  curious  scene 
ensued.  The  moderator,  commendable  for  his  general  impartiality,  decided 
the  paper  to  be  out  of  order,  if  it  professed  to  be  a  copy  of  charges,  but  to  be 
in  order,  if  it  professed  to  be  a  bar  to  the  installation.  "Now,  it  so  happened, 
that  it  came  under  both  these  professions,  and  hence  a  dilemma.  The  majo- 
rity, however,  confirmed  the  decision  that  it  was  out  of  order,  and  vet  deter- 
mined that  it  should  be  read.  Dr.  Ely,  Mr.  Biggs,  and  Mr.  Steel'professed 
to  regard  the  paper,  before  it  was  read,  as  a  "very  serious  obstacle  to  the 
installation  ;  but  subsequently,  Mr.  Biggs  found  that  the  charges  contained  wo 
new  matter ;  Dr.  Ely,  that  they  were  preferied /oo  /ote ,-  and  Mr.  Steel  of- 
fered no  ground  for  a  change  of  opinion,  and  they  w  ere  eventually  found  united 
in  the  vote  for  installation. 


(  16  ) 

success  to  a  favourite  measure,  and  these  sessions  of  the  Pres- 
bytery have  been  prolific  of  such  occurrences.  It  was  decided 
by  regular  vote,  that  Mr.  Barnes'  doctrinal  errors  might  be  can- 
vassed, and  il  was  also  decided  that  they  might  not  be  can- 
vassed ;  it  was  maintained,  that  Mr.  Barnes  might  be  arraigned 
when  he  should  become  a  member  of  Presbytery,  and  it  was 
maintained  by  the  same  persons,  when  he  had  become  a  mem- 
ber, and  an  arraignment  was  attempted,  that  it  was  too  late  to 
arraign  him  for  acts  committed  in  another  Presbytery,  and  in 
the  full  knowledge  of  which  he  had  been  received  by  tliis  ; 
there  were  those  who  declared  themselves  to  be  of  the  old 
orthodox  school,  and  yet  were  willing  to  lend  their  influence  in 
promoting  the  interests  of  the  new  school,  which  is  any  thing 
but  orthodox ;  it  was  maintained  by  the  same  person,  that  the 
same  sermon  contained  false  doctrine,  and  that  it  contained  no 
false  doctrine  ;  some  were  found  who  could  advocate  one  side 
of  a  cause  in  their  speeches,  and  advocate  the  opposite  side  by 
their  votes ;  but  we  forbear ;  our  only  comment  is,  that  truth  is 
beautifully  consistent  with  itself.  This  we  honestly  believe  to 
be  a  correct  narrative  of  the  proceedings  in  relation  to  the  case 
of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes,  and  it  has  been  extorted  from  us  by 
the  officious  zeal  of  those  who  have  attempted  to  pre-occupy 
the  public  attention  by  their  imperfect  and  garbled  sketch. 

Hostility  to  any  of  the  brethren  we  disclaim.  We  merely  re- 
view and  condemn  that  conduct  which  we  consider  reprehen- 
sible in  them  as  Presbyters.  We  conscientiously  believe  that  we 
have  stated  the  truth,  and  we  are  willing  to  defend  it.  If  there 
must  be  controversy,  we  have  not  sought  it,  but.  obtruded  upon 
us,  we  will  not  avoid  it. 


LETTER 

From  a  gentleman  in  JVeiv  Jersey,  dated  July  29th,  1830,  to 
''Rev.  fV.  L.  APCalla,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

I  have  just  received  and  read  a  Sketch  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  in  regard  to  the  installation  of  the 
Rev.  Albert  Barnes;  it  is  a  sketch  of  one  side  only.  The  arguments 
in  favour  of  the  installation  of  Mr.  Barnes  and  of  his  doctrines, 
are  given  at  some  length,  while  those  against  him  are  suppress- 
ed. There  are  some  persons  here  who  do  not  think  Mr.  Barnes 
that  paragon  of  perfection  he  is  by  some  represented  to  be.  I 
think  it  but  fair  that  the  whole  of  the  proceedings  should  go 
before  the  public.  I  have,  therefore,  taken  the  liberty  to  re- 
quest you  to  forward  to  me  the  debates  against  the  doctrines  of 
Mr.  Barnes  ;  by  so  doing,  you  will  oblige 

Your  obedient  servant." 

ANSWER. 

Letter  I. — The  Sketch  Exposed. 
Dear  Sir, 

You  have  assigned  me  a  difficult  task  ;  I  will  endeavour  to 
perform  it  as  in  the  presence  of  my  final  Judge.  You  probably 
think  us  either  very  patient  or  very  insensible,  to  bear,  in  si- 
lence, for  so  many  months,  the  cross-fire  of  the  Philadelphian 
and  the  Sketch.  To  be  wounded  in  the  house  of  a  friend,  is  a 
great  trial,  but  it  belonged  to  the  cup  of  our  Master's  sufferings, 
and  in  his  cause,  we  are  willing  to  have  our  names  cast  out  as 
evil.  The  free  use  which  the  Sketch  has  made  of  names,  in 
blazing  them  before  the  public  eye,  has  probably  amazed  you  ; 
but  if  his  cause  be  right,  his  course  should  not  be  ofl^ensive  in 
this  particular.  If  we  be  guilty,  let  us  be  exposed  ;  if  we  be  so 
full  oi  acrimony  and  so  destitute  of  tenderness  or  christian  can- 
dour, as  he  says,  let  the  public  know  our  names  and  our  offend- 
ing. The  reporter  says,  that  Dr.  Green  and  his  coadjutors 
"seemed  to  forget  all  the  laws  of  kindness  and  christian  fellow- 
ship, and  gave  a  loose  to  their  long  harboured  prejudice  against 
the  'new  school  divinity,^  as  thoy  called  it."*  Now  I  am  not 
unwilling  to  be  published  as  an  opposer  of  the  "  new  school 
divinity  ;"  and  to  allow  its  friends  to  call  me  by  whatsoever  hard 
names  they  may  think  best.  And  if  Dr.  M'Auley  aad  his  fol- 
lowers have  concluded  to  forsake  the  old  system,  and  become 
the  protectors,  and  the  uncandid  protectors  of  the  "  new  school 

*  Sketch,  p.  5. 


divinity,'^  let  them,  by  name,  get  the  credit  of  their  achieve- 
ments. In  my  account,  therefore,  of  the  debate,  I  may  attach 
their  names  to  their  deeds.  In  doing  so,  remember,  I  follow 
the  example  of  their  reporter,  the  author  of  the  Sketch,  in 
which  we  are  assailed  with  such  severity  and  unfairness  as  im- 
periously calls  for  a  defence. 

This  writer  professes  to  have  been  present,  and  to  have  noted 
what  passed,  except  what  he  calls  "  a  long  speech"  of  mine.  It 
would  be  too  great  a  waste  of  time  to  notice  half  the  errors  of 
this  miniature  report ;  permit  me  to  give  you  a  specimen.  After 
the  minority  of  the  Presbytery  had  presented  charges  against 
Mr.  Barnes,  Dr.  M'Auley  represented  them  as  having  prepared 
these  charges  long  before  they  were  handed  in  ;  and  (as  I  un- 
derstand) he  insinuated  unworthy  motives  for  such  a  measure. 
The  "  Sketch"  makes  him  say,  "  Dr.  Ely  told  me  yesterday 
morning  that  charges  were  already  prepared."  The  reporter 
then  says,  "Dr.  Ely  explained  that  it  was  not  in  the  morning, 
but  afternoon.*  Remember,  he  pretends  to  have  heard  and 
noted  the  above  assertion  of  Dr.  M'Auley,  and  explanation  of 
Dr.  Ely.  Yet  Dr.  Ely,  (in  the  Philadelphian  of  July  23d)  denies 
having  made  the  above  explanation,  and  denies  having  heard  Dr. 
M'Auley  make  the  assertion  which  the  reporter  attributes  to 
him,  as  having  elicited  the  explanation.  If  his  own  partisans 
contradict  him,  it  is  no  wonder  that  I  should  deny  many  other 
statements  and  slanderous  insinuations  of  far  greater  impor- 
tance. 

Besides  the  inaccuracy  of  the  report,  its  partiality,  to  which 
your  letter  refers,  might  be  shown  at  great  length.  I  will  trou- 
ble you  with  one  sample.  We  were  discussing  the  question  of 
order,  concerning  the  right  of  our  Presbytery  to  examine  Mr." 
Barnes,  when  coming  to  us  with  an  orderly  dismission  and 
good  recommendation  from  the  Presbytery  of  Elizabethtown. 
The  reporter  states  that  Mr.  Patterson  "  quoted  from  Steuart's 
collections,  two  cases,  to  show  that  it  was  not  the  usage  of  the 
Scotch  church  ;  that  they  never  did  re-examine  a  minister  for 
installation."!  The  writer  does  not  condescend  to  report  my 
speech  in  reply  to  Mr.  Patterson,  but  only  represents  it  as  cha- 
racterized by  "  wide  digressions,^^  and  other  things  far  worse. 
In  compliance  with  your  request,  I  will  endeavour,  in  a  small 
degree,  to  supply  the  defect  of  this  "  sketch  of  one  side  only," 
by  mentioning  two  of  those  "  vjide  digressions,^^  which  the  re- 
porter thinks  so  contemptible  in  comparison  with  Mr.  Patter- 
son's "  hf;o  cases,"  as  he  inaccurately  calls  them.  Mr.  Patter- 
son's two  authorities  from  Steuart's  Collections,  were  intended 
to  show  that  the  rules  and  usages  of  the  Scottish  Church  are 
favourable  to  receiving  and  installing  Mr.  Barnes,  without  exa- 
mination, by  our  Presbytery,  in  which  the  calling  congregation 
lies.     One  of  his  quotations  represented  "  the  call  as  to  what 

*  Sketch,  p.  30.  t  Sketch,  p.  12. 


(     19     ) 

appeareth  at  present  to  be  orderly.^'  In  reply,  I  reminded  the 
Presbytery  that  the  call  for  Wr.  Karnes,  "as  to  what  uppcareth 
at  present,"  was  disorderly;  because  it  v/as  presented  before 
the  congregation  had  ever  heard  iiim  preach;  and  it  therefore 
omitted  the  words,  ^^ from  our  past  experience  of  your  labours;'''' 
which  fact,  in  this,  "or  like  form,"  our  constitution  requires  to 
be  stated  in  an  orderly  call.*  If  this  was  a  digression,  it  was 
not  a  very  ivide  one.  INIr.  Patterson's  second  quotation  is  as 
follows,  viz.  "Actual  ministers,  when  transported,  are  not  to  be 
tried  again,  as  was  done  at  their  entry  to  the  ministry."!  This 
was  very  confidently  read,  and  boldly  applied  to  the  case  in 
hand,  to  show  that  Mr.  Ijarnes,  when  translated,  should  not  be 
examined  by  the  Presbytery  in  which  the  calling  congregation 
lies.  In  my  second  ivide  digression,  I  begged  leave  to  read 
those  words,  in  Steuart's  Collections,  which  immediately  follow 
the  words  quoted  by  Mr.  Patterson.  They  are  these,  viz:  "But 
only  the  Presbytery,  in  ivhichthe  calling  parish  lies,  shall  judge 
of  his  gifts,  from  what  they  have  .heard  of  him  in  the  exercise 
thereof."  The  reading  of  this  context  which,  evidently,  turned 
Mr.  Patterson's  authority  against  himself,  and  placed  his  can- 
dour in  no  very  amiable  light,  produced  such  an  impression 
upon  the  whole  house,  as  showed  that  they  did  not  consider  it 
a  wide  digression.  But  our  impartial  Reporter  has  not  thought 
proper  to  advert  to  it,  in  any  other  way  than  to  accuse  me  of 
invective,  insinuation,  personal  allusions,  and  wide  digressions, 
with  the  most  unsparing  bitterness ! !  Surely  this  Reporter  must 
be  an  example  of  iyisupportable  sweetness  I 

For  the  purpose  of  injuring  a  good  cause,  by  calumniating 
and  dividing  its  advocates,  he  writes  as  follows,  viz.  "Even 
those  on  the  same  side  of  the  question  [with  Mr.  M'Calla,]  all 
the  time  he  is  speaking  appear  to  be  on  the  rack,  for  fear  that 
he  would  disgrace  and  destroy  the  cause  which  he  pretends  to 
defend.  J  As  tiiese  words  evidently  intimate  that  I  lack  the 
confidence  of  my  party,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  inquire  whom 
he  moans  by  those  on  tiie  same  side  of  the  (juestion.  If  he  mean 
the  minority,  then  he  contradicts  their  own  declarations.  Dr. 
Green,  our  honoured  leader  in  the  Presbytery,  and  Mr.  Engles, 
our  triumphant  champion  in  the  press,  both  referred,  in  their 
speeches,  to  my  argument,  with  flattering  approbation.  If  there 
be  any  division  in  the  minority  on  this  subject,  I  am  ignorant  of 
it.  That  the  majority  are  divided  is  quite  probable.  One  of 
them  (iMr.  Steele)  told  me  with  his  own  lips,  that  he  very 
highly  approved  of  my  doctrinal  argument  against  Mr.  Barnes' 
Sermon. 

It  is  not  impossible  that  the  Pccporter  was  watching  the  coun- 
tenances of  other  members  of  the  majority,  who  call  themselves 

*  Form  of  Gov.  chap.  15.  Sect.  C. 

t  Steuart's  Col.  Book  1,  Title  2,  Sections  3,  11.  %  Sketch,  p.  15. 


(  20  ) 

old-school  men.  Perhaps  Mr.  Sanford  appeared  to  be  on  the 
rack  while  I  was  speaking.  It  is  true  that  we  were  on  the  same 
side,  when  he  was  a  candidate  for  his  present  station.  Then  he 
appeared  to  all  parties  to  be  an  old-school  man  indeed.  On 
this  account  the  heterodox  opposed  his  coming,  and  the  ortho- 
dox were  his  advocates.  But  he  is  now  aiding  and  flattering  his 
former  opposers,  and  insinuating  the  charge  of  dotage  against 
his  old  friends,  for  remaining  faithful  to  that  cause,  the  name  of 
which  procured  him  his  present  promotion. 

But  perhaps  the  Reporter  observed  the  countenance  of  ano- 
ther self-styled  old-school  man,  Dr.  M'Auley,  to  be  on  the  rack 
while  I  was  speaking;  although  His  Lowliness  appeared  ludi- 
crously anxious  to  be  thought  infinitely  above  noticing  me,  or 
any  thing  that  I  could  say.  That  the  Reporter  considered  the 
Doctor  as  belonging  to  the  other  side,  is  evident  from  his  sketch ; 
but  that  he  assigned  him  to  our  side,  also,  is  quite  possible, 
because  Dr.  Ely,  in  his  best  speech  on  our  side,  proved,  that 
during  the  last  Assembly,  Dr.  M'Auley  exhibited  an  astonish- 
ing propensity  for  being  on  both  sides  of  every  question ;  and 
expressly  owned  a  desire  to  vote  on  both  sides. 

That  Dr.  Ely  also,  another  self-called  old-school  member  of 
the  majority,  was  sometimes  thought  to  be  on  the  rack,  will 
appear  from  the  Reporter's  words  immediately  following  those 
quoted  above,  viz.  "  One  day,  some  time  ago,  a  certain  Doctor, 
who  was  on  the  same  side  of  a  question  with  him  in  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly,  got  up  and  declared  in  his  presence,  that  if  he 
had  a  good  cause,  and  wished  to  have  it  ruined,  he  would  get 
Mr.  M'Calla  to  plead  it."  It  is  true  that,  in  1826,  Dr.  Ely  and 
myself  were  on  the  same  side  in  the  General  Assembly;  and 
that  I  took  a  position  a  little  in  advance  of  the  Dr.,  as  I  am 
rather  apt  to  do.  It  is  true,  also,  that  while  a  multitudinous  foe 
assailed  me  in  front,  a  professed  friend  in  tiie  rear,  hurled  a 
javelin  which  he  thought  would  lay  me  low. 

At  a  subsequent  period,  I  had  the  pleasure  of  advocating  a 
committee  to  which  Dr.  Ely  belonged,  in  the  Board  of  Mis- 
sions. After  the  adjournment,  he  threw  his  arms  around  me, 
and  said,  that  when  a  man  attacked  him  with  a  drawn  sword, 
he  should  like  to  have  me  to  stand  by  him.  Compare  this  with 
his  declaration  that  if  he  had  a  good  cause,  and  wished  to  have 
it  ruined,  he  would  get  Mr.  M'Calla  to  plead  it. 

But  the  Reporter  pretends  that  I  injured  Dr.  Ely  and  others 
during  the  discussion.  He  says,  <' Rev.  W.  L.  M'Calla  again 
arose,  and  spoke  until  nearly  8  o'clock.  His  speech  consisted 
principally  in  answering  some  personal  remarks  respecting  what 
he  had  before  said.  He  animadverted  very  severely  upon  what 
he  called  the  inconsistency  of  Mr.  Biggs,  Dr.  Ely,  and  some 
others."*  These  others  were  Dr.  M'Auley  and  Mr.  Thomas 
Bradford,  from  whom  the  Reporter's  personalities  came,    not 

*  Sketch,  p.  18. 


only  against  me,  but  against  Dr.  Green  and  Mr.  Russell.  Dr. 
M'Auley  often  insisted  that  when  a  minister  was  dismissed  from 
one  Presbytery,  and  recommended  to  another,  he  ought  to  be 
received  of  course,  merely  out  of  respect  to  his  clean  papers, 
obtained  from  a  co-ordinate  court,  and  that  no  Presbytery  had 
ever  acted  otherwise.  Yet,  in  the  same  speech,  he,  at  last,  told 
us,  that  however  clean  a  man's  papers  might  be,  no  respect  to 
a  co-ordinate  court  could  bind  a  Presbytery  to  receive  him,  if 
he  came  rather  as  an  editor  than  a  pastor  or  preacher.  Although 
this  invidious  description  does  not  fit  Dr.  Green  and  Mr.  Russell, 
who  are  more  useful  ministers  than  Dr.  M'Auley  himself,  yet 
they  are  editors,  and  without  charge;  so  that  it  appeared  tole- 
rably evident  that  his  general  rule  was  manufactured  for  the 
introduction  of  such  unsound  men  as  Mr.  Barnes,  and  his  nulli- 
fying exception  was  a  convenient  invention  for  the  preclusion  of 
such  men  as  the  obnoxious  worthies  abovementioned.  To  carry 
the  contradiction  to  its  greatest  extent,  the  Dr.  asserted  that 
the  Presbytery  of  New  York  had  precluded  many  upon  this 
ground.  We  could  not  then  see  the  bearing  of  a  great  deal 
that  the  Dr.  read  with  a  very  wise  and  mysterious  air,  out  of  a 
little  book,  containing,  as  he  said,  "  a  variety,"  which  he  seem- 
ed to  think  we  had  never  read,  or  had  entirely  forgotten.  It 
was  the  H^ew  Testament,  Acts  xv.  Its  true  application  became 
more  apparent,  when  Mr.  Bradford  disclosed  an  additional 
exception  to  their  general  rule.  It  was  this, — that  if  a  man 
were  guilty  of  contention  and  disputation,  no  recommendation 
from  abroad,  no  call  from  a  congregation  at  home,  could  justify 
a  Presbytery  in  receiving  him.  Now  you  know  that  in  the  popu- 
lar code  of  the  present  day,  contention  and  disputation  in  defence 
of  the  truth,  are  crimes  to  which  the  punishment  of  death  is 
annexed,  without  henejit  of  clergy.  As  I  have  long  been  an  out- 
law on  this  account,  it  was  easy  to  tell  for  whom  Mr.  Bradford's 
exception  was  intended.  Now  was  the  time  to  show  the  true 
application  of  Dr.  M'Auley's  little  variety-hook,  of  which  he 
aftected  to  think  us  so  ignorant.  He  had  read  to  us  Acts  xv. 
about  certain  men,  like  Mr.  Barnes,  who  came  down  from  Judea, 
and  taught  a  ivay  of  salvation  which  was  contrary  to  the  gos- 
pel. Did  Paul  and  Barnabas  receive  them  upon  the  credit  of 
their  clean  papers?  Did  they  tamely  admit  them,  for  fear  of 
being  themselves  expelled  by  some  Mr.  Bradford,  for  the  alleged 
crimes  of  contention  and  disputation?  Did  they  escape  the  cross, 
by  pretending  that  it  was  a  mere  point  of  order,  in  which  the 
doctrinal  question  of  The  way  of  salvation  had  nothing  to  do'? 
Let  us  hear  again  the  2d  verse  which  Dr.  M'Auley  read  to  us. 
"  When,  therefore,  Paul  and  Barnabas  had  no  small  dissension 
and  disputation  with  them,  they  determined  that  Patil  and  Bar- 
nabas, and  certain  other  of  them,  should  go  up  to  Jerusalem, 
unto  the  apostles  and  elders,  about  this  question."  This  visit  of 
theirs  to  Jerusalem,  and  their  deliberations  while  there,  related 
to  the  question  of  doctrine,  upon  which  they  made  the  point  of 


order  to  turn.  The  latter  was  virtually  determined  by  their 
decision  on  the  former ;  which,  in  their  letter  to  the  churches, 
said  that  these  false  teachers  "  have  troubled  you  with  words, 
subverting  your  souls."  There  was  not  even  one  Dr.  M'Auley 
among  them,  to  move  for  the  expulsion  of  Paul  and  Barnabas, 
as  the  Editors  of  this  Epistle ;  nor  was  there  one  Mr.  Bradford, 
to  condemn  them  for  their  dissension  and  disputation,  against 
the  troublers  of  the  church,  and  the  subverters  of  souls. 

Now  for  the  Reporter's  assertion,  that  I  "  animadverted  very 
severely"  upon  the  inconsistency  of  Mr.  Biggs  and  Dr.  Ely.  As 
to  the  former,  I  only  proved  what  Mr.  Engles  had  proved  before 
me  :  that  Mr.  Biggs  had  rejected  former  candidates,  notwith- 
standing their  verbal  adoption  of  our  constitution;  whereas  now 
he  insisted  that  we  should  receive  Mr.  Barnes,  because  he 
adopted  our  constitution  by  profession ;  thus  placing  a  confi- 
dence in  his  professions,  which  he  had  withheld  from  others  of 
equal  claims  to  veracity.  After  the  discussion  I  asked  Mr. 
Biggs  if  he  considered  my  remarks  severe,  and  he  very  readily 
declared  that  they  were  not.  Dr.  Skinner,  the  Moderator,  who 
is  generally  considered  as  agreeing  with  Mr.  Barnes,  in  doc- 
trine, declared  the  same  thing ;  but  this  wise,  charitable,  and 
impartial  Reporter,  seems  to  know  the  operation  of  medicine 
better  than  the  doctor  or  the  patient  either.  He  evidently  wrote 
his  little  work,  to  pre-occupy  the  public  mind  with  groundless 
and  cruel  prejudices  against  our  cause  and  its  advocates;  and 
to  forestall  us  in  the  Synod  and  General  Assembly,  to  which 
he  expected  this  thing  to  be  carried.  Doubtless,  many  of 
them,  when  they  see  the  Sketch,  will  feel  anxious,  like  yourself, 
to  see  the  other  side  ;  and  it  is  but  fair  that  they  should  see  it. 

As  to  my  severe  animadversions  upon  the  inconsistency  of 
Dr.  Ely,  they  were  much  of  a  piece  with  his  animadversions 
upon  Dr.  M'Auley.  On  the  motion  for  receiving  Mr.  Barnes,  Dr. 
Ely's  first  speech  was  considered  an  admirable  one  in  our  favour; 
and  the  most  admirable  part  of  it  was  thought  to  be  his  expo- 
sure of  Dr.  M'Auley,  for  endeavouring,  during  the  last  Assem- 
bly, to  reconcile  the  affirmative  and  negative  of  almost  every 
question,  so  as  to  make  out  that  there  was  no  difference  between 
them;  and  thus  advocating  both  sides,  in  the  same  speech,  con- 
tinually. Take  notice,  this  first  speech  of  Dr.  Ely,  on  this 
motion,  was  in  our  favour  :  but  his  next  speech  on  the  same 
motion,  was  as  decidedly  against  us.  In  my  reply,  I,  rather 
jocosely,  animadverted  upon  this  inconsistency,  comparing  and 
contrasting  it  with  that  of  Dr.  M'Auley,  and  reminding  the 
Presbytery,  that  this  was  only  one  link  of  a  notorious  chain  of 
similar  acts,  from  day  to  day,  through  the  protracted  delibera- 
tions of  that  body. 

And  it  was  a  protracted  atf'air  indeed;  for  I  believe  it  occu- 
pied seven  days;  two  in  the  session-room  back  of  the  2d  Church, 
two  in  their  session-house  in  Cherry  street,  and  three  in  the  ses- 


(         ^3         ) 

sion-room  of  the  1st  Church,  where  the  Assembly  meets  of  late 
years.  During  this  time  the  most  important  motions,  according 
to  my  recollection,  were  eight ;  some  of  which  were  discussed, 
during  the  suspension  of  others  by  postponement.  I  shall  men- 
tion them  without  regard  to  chronological  order.  Three  of  them 
related  to  the  calling,  receiving,  and  installing  of  Mr.  Barnes. 
Three  of  them  related  to  a  judicial  process  against  him,  for  the 
errors  of  his  printed  sermon.  Two  of  these,  made  on  the  4th 
and  7th  days,  were  for  sending  him  back  to  the  Presbytery  of 
Elizabethtown  for  trial.  The  third,  on  the  7th  day,  presented 
charges  against  him  to  be  tried  before  his  installation,  by  this 
Presbytery,  after  they  had  received  him.  Serious  as  the  charges 
were,  the  majority  proceeded  to  the  installation,  without  regard- 
ing them. 

The  two  remaining  motions  of  my  enumeration  related  to  the 
examination  of  Mr.  Barnes  and  his  sermon.  As  to  the  exami- 
nation of  a  minister,  subsequent  to  his  ordination,  Dr.  M'Auley 
boldly  and  repeatedly  denied,  that  the  principle  or  the  practice 
could  be  found  in  any  portion  of  the  church  of  Christ.  The 
absurdity  of  this  position  is  so  extravagant,  as  to  appear  incredi- 
ble :  yet  I  am  not  apprehensive  of  contradiction  from  the  Doc- 
tor, or  any  of  the  Presbytery;  for  it  was  this,  in  a  great  measure, 
that  gained  him  the  victory.  He  asserted  it  so  often,  with  such 
an  oracular  tone,  and  with  such  an  awful  majesty  of  manner, 
and  looked  down  with  such  sovereign  contempt,  upon  any 
authority,  or  any  speaker  which  came  in  his  way,  as  to  make 
one  feel  a  shuddering  fear,  lest  insisting  upon  Mr.  Barnes'  exa- 
mination, might  bring  upon  us  tlie  double  disgrace  and  guilt  of 
ignorance  and  blasphemy.  This  was  too  much,  even  for  Dr. 
Ely's  new  system  of  harmony,  which  has  arisen  out  of  the  ashes 
of  his  defunct  contrast.  He,  therefore,  joined  Dr.  Green,  Mr. 
Engles,  and  the  minority,  in  proving,  by  abundant  evidence,  that 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  Scotland,  and  in  this  country,  were 
familiar  with  the  principle  and  the  practice,  of  judging  the  cha- 
racter of  an  ordained  candidate  for  admission  to  a  Presbytery, 
and  of  rejecting  him,  if  they  were  not  satisfied  with  his  doctrinal 
or  practical  correctness.  Take  the  three  following  authorities, 
from  our  General  Assembly,  viz.  "  It  is  the  privilege  of  every 
Presbytery  to  judge  of  tlie  character  and  situation  of  those  ivho 
apply  to  he  admitted  into  their  otvn  body,  and  unless  they  are 
satisfied,  to  decline  receiving  the  same.  A  Presbytery,  it  is  true, 
may  make  an  improper  use  of  this  privilege  ;  in  which  case,  the 
rejected  applicant  may  appeal  to  the  Synod  or  the  General 
Assembly,"  "  Every  Presbytery  has  a  right  to  judge  of  the 
qualifications  of  its  own  members.''''  "  The  right  of  deciding  on 
the  fitness  of  admitting  Mr.  Wells  a  constituent  member  of  the 
Presbytery  of  Geneva,  belonged  to  the  Presbytery  itself.'''* 

*  Minutes  of  1825,  p.  265.  of  1826,  p.  28.  Digest,  p.  325. 


(  24  ) 

Dr.  Green  showed  that  all  Princeton  treated  our  view  of  this 
subject,  as  an  important,  honourable,  and  acknowledged  principle 
of  Presbyterianism.  This  he  proved  from  the  143d  page  of  the 
2nd  vol.  of"  The  Biblical  Repertory,  and  Theological  Review  ; 
edited  by  an  Association  of  gentlemen  in  Princeton,  and  its  vi- 
cinity," a  work  which  is  highly  recommended  and  patronised 
by  several  of  the  Majority  now  opposed  to  us.  A  writer  in  op- 
position to  the  Repertory  had  intimated  that  our  constitution 
laid  us  open  to  corruption.  The  answer  to  this  argument,  Mr. 
Engles  also  read  from  the  Repertoky  in  the  following  words, 
viz.  "  We  must  be  permitted  to  say  that  in  arriving  at  this  con- 
clusion, the  writer  left  entirely  out  of  view  one  very  remarkable 
feature  in  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in  the 
United  States.  It  is  this  :  Every  Presbytery  judges  of  the  quali- 
fications of  its  own  members;  and  what  is  the  result'?  If  a  con- 
gregation choose  a  pastor,  who,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Presbytery, 
is  heretical,  or  otherwise  unfit  for  his  office,  the  Presbytery  re- 
fuses to  ordain  or  install  him:  and  if  the  congregation  persist 
in  its  choice,  they  must  become  independent,  and  consequent- 
ly have  no  influence  in  the  judicatories  of  the  Presbyterian 
church,  and  cannot  be  members  of  the  Assembly.  And  further, 
if  a  Presbytery  become  corrupt,  it  is  amenable  to  its  Synod,  and 
to  the  General  Assembly,  and  may  be  cast  ofFas  easily  as  single 
members.  These  provisions  are  not  a  dead  letter.  They  take 
effect  every  year  to  a  less  or  greater  extent.  It  generally,  indeed, 
happens  that  when  a  Presbytery  refuses  to  receive  a  pastor  electa 
the  congregation,  confiding  in  the  more  enlightened  judgment 
of  the  Presbytery,  or  Synod,  desists,  and  chooses  another  pastor; 
but  if  not,  they  cease  to  have  any  connexion  with  the  Presby- 
tery." 

This  language  of  the  Repertory  shows  that  its  editors  agree 
with  the  Minority,  in  their  interpretation  of  our  constitution, 
which  says  that  a  Presbytery  is  instituted,  "  in  order  to  preserve 
soundness  of  doctrine,  and  regularity  of  discipline,"  "  and  in 
general  to  order  whatever  pertains  to  the  spiritual  welfare  of 
the  churches  under  their  care."*  To  lay  aside  this  constitu- 
tional authority,  by  pretending  that  the  theology  of  pastors  does 
not  pertain  to  the  welfare  of  churches,  would  be  as  bad  as  Dr. 
M'Auley's  way  of  evading  Steuart's  collections,  where  it  is  said 
that,  "  The  Presbytery  in  which  the  calling  parish  lies  shall 
judge  of  his  gifts."  The  Dr.  read  the  context,  to  show  that  the 
word  gifts  was  equivalent  to  abilities ;  and  that  if  Mr.  Barnes 
had  GIFTS,  or  abilities,  of  an  order  suitable  to  the  intellectual 
character  of  the  church  which  called  him,  the  passage  in  ques- 
tion did  not  contemplate  an  examination  whether  his  doctrines 
were  correct  or  corrupt. 

I  am  willing  now  to  let  the  Scotch  church  decide  whether 

•  Form  of  Ciov.  Chap.  10.  Sections  1.  8. 


(         25         ) 

these  gifts  or  abilities,  are  only  sucli  as  may  be  connected  with 
doctrinal  error,  or  such  as  are  connected  with  orthodoxy.  It  so 
happens  that  the  great  Scotch  Durham,  who  was,  perhaps,  as 
well  informed  a  disciplinarian  as  any  who  ever  bore  the  Pres- 
byterian name,  has  treated  these  two  sorts  of  gifts,  in  the  two 
first  paragraphs  of  one  of  his  many  chapters  on  ecclesiastical 
offences.  The  chapter  discusses  the  means  by  which  Satan 
drives  on  the  plague  of  error  among  the  people.  If  his  first 
paragraph  be  true,  then  Satan  goes  just  as  far  in  examining  his 
ministers,  as  Dr.  M'Auley  allows  the  Presbytery  to  go  :  that  is, 
he  examines  into  their  intellectual,  literary,  and  rhetorical  gifts 
and  abilities.  Durham  then  tells  us  of  "such  coming  from  one 
place  to  another,  as  from  Jerusalem  to  Antioch,  Acts  xv,  and 
elsewhere,  purposely  to  spread  their  errors,  as  the  Apostles  did 
travel  for  preaching  the  truth."  Here  he  refers  us  to  Acts  xv, 
the  very  chapter  which  Dr.  M'Auley  read  so  gravely  from  his 
little  variety-hook,  about  men  of  unsanctified  gifts.  We  have 
already  heard,  that  instead  of  receiving  them,  "  Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas had  no  small  dissension  and  disputation  with  them."  In 
connexion  with  this,  Durham  refers  us  to  Rev.  ii.  2  ;  where 
Christ  commends  the  Ephesian  Presbytery  for  patiently  and 
resolutely  examining  and  rejecting  these  gifted  errorists  :  "  I 
know  thy  works,  and  thy  labour,  and  thy  patience,  and  how 
thoic  canst  not  bear  them  which  are  evil :  and  thou  hast  tried 
them  which  say  they  are  apostles,  and  are  not,  and  hast  found 
them  LIARS."  In  Durham's  next  paragraph  he  shows  that  minis- 
terial gifts,  instead  of  being  indifferent  to  truth  and  error,  are 
bestowed  for  protection  against  error.  He  uses  the  following 
words,  viz.  ^^ Gifts  are  given  to  men  by  Jesus  Christ,  purposely 
to  guard  the  Church  from  being  tossed  to  and  fro  ivith  corrupt 
doctrine  by  the  sleight  of  men.''''*  I  would  only  add  the  following 
rule  of  Scotch  Presbyterians,  ancient  and  modern,  on  both  sides 
of  the  Atlantic,  viz.  ^^  As  for  him  that  hath  formerly  been  or- 
dained a  minister,  and  is  to  be  removed  to  another  charge,  he 
shall  bring  a  testimonial  of  his  ordination,  and  of  his  abilities 
and  conversation,  whereupon  his  fitness  for  that  place  shall  be 
tried  by  his  preaching  there,  and  (if  it  shall  be  judged  neces- 
sary) by  a  farther  examination  of  him."\ 

In  truth,  the  very  fact  of  their  being  allowed  to  vote  on  the 
subject,  allows  them  to  vote  in  the  negative ;  which,  as  Dr.  Green 
proved,  overthrew  completely,  the  doctrine,  that  they  had  no 
discretion  in  the  matter,  but  were  bound,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
to  grant  leave  to  call  the  candidate. 

Thus  have  I  endeavoured,  in  sincerity,  to  show  that  the  Bible, 
the  Scottish  church,  our  Constitution  and  acts  of  Assembly,  with 

♦Durham's  Treatise  concernint^  Scandal,  Part  3,  chap.  6. 
t  Scotch  Collections,  p.  180.     Also,  the  Directories  of  the  Reformed,  and 
of  the  Associate  Churches  in  America. 

D 


{      ^b      ) 

the  gentlemen  in  Princeton  and  its  vicinity,  support  the  minor- 
ity in  the  position  that  the  Presbytery  of  the  calling  congrega- 
tion have  a  right  to  examine  into  the  theology  of  an  ordained 
applicant  for  admission  by  translation:  that  is,  they  have  a  right 
to  examine  Mr.  Barnes. 

It  may  seem  strange,  that  the  motions  for  examining  Mr. 
Barnes,  and  for  examining  his  sermon,  were  decided  in  oppo- 
site ways ;  yet  such  was  the  fact.  On  the  first  day,  when  the 
motion  was  made  forgiving  leave  to  call  Mr.  Barnes,  Dr.  Green 
arose,  and  in  a  manner  too  mild  for  any  thing  but  the  Reporter's 
insensate  malevolence  to  censure,  declared  his  conscientious 
opposition  to  the  motion,  until  difficulties,  presented  by  Mr. 
Barnes'  printed  sermon,  should  be  removed.  It  is  somewhere 
about  this  stage  of  the  business,  that  the  Reporter  accuses  the 
minority  of  indulging  great  acrimony  against  Dr.  Emmons,  Dr. 
Murdock,  and  Dr.  Taylor,  as  well  as  Mr.  Barnes  and  his  sup- 
porters. It  is  true  the  minority  humbly  disapproved  of  the  the- 
ology of  Mr.  Barnes,  and  the  three  Doctors,  Emmons,  Murdock, 
and  Taylor ;  but  this  offence  was  amply  punished  by  their 
avengers.  Dr.  M'Auley,  and  Messrs.  Bradford,  Biggs,  and  San- 
ford,  who,  in  the  excess  of  their  liberality  and  magnanimity, 
bearded  Dr.  Green,  and  attempted  to  stop  free  discussion,  by  a 
vote  of  the  house,  to  prevent  Dr.  Green  from  specifying  the 
errors  of  Mr.  Barnes'  sermon,  as  his  reasons  for  opposing  the 
call,  and  voting  in  the  negative.  While  they  opposed  the  read- 
ing of  Mr.  Barnes'  own  printed  sermon  against  him,  they  eagerly 
uttered  all  the  hear-say  things  that  they  could  gather,  in  his 
favour.  They  were  constantly  telling  us  that  the  1st  Church 
said  he  was  sound,  and  their  committee  said  he  was  sound,  and 
this  preacher  said  he  was  sound,  and  that  Doctor  and  the  other 
Doctor  said  he  was  sound,  and  yet  they  were  not  willing  for  his 
soundness  to  be  tested  by  his  own  sermon  ;  they  were  not  even 
willing  to  give  to  Dr.  Green,  nor  to  any  other  member,  the  exer- 
cise of  a  constitutional  right,  in  giving  his  lawful,  his  real,  and 
his  only  reasons,  for  voting  as  he  did.  But  the  Presbytery  were 
not  yet  ripe  for  a  gag-law  of  so  sweeping  a  character.  They, 
therefore,  determined  to  allow  Dr.  Green  the  enjoyment  of  his 
right,  by  a  vote  of  37  to  10.  Now  let  it  be  remembered  that 
irrelevant  matter  should  be  kept  out  of  the  discussion.  But  here 
is  a  vote  of  37  to  10,  which  allows  the  examination  of  this  ser- 
mon at  any  length,  and  thus  establishes  the  relevancy  of  its 
doctrines  to  the  motion  in  debate.  If,  therefore,  there  be  an 
important  opposition,  and  especially  if  there  be  a  vital  opposi- 
tion, between  the  doctrines  of  the  sermon,  and  those  of  tlie 
Bible  and  Presbyterian  constitution,  this  vote  of  37  to  10  vir- 
tually said  that  the  motion  should  be  decided  in  the  negative. 
This  is  according  to  our  ordination  vows,  in  which  we  answer, 
with  a  solemn  affirmative,  to  the  following  question,  viz.  "Do 
you  promise  to  be  zealous  and  faithful  in  maintaining  the  truths 


(  27  ) 

of  the  gospel,  and  the  purity  and  peace  of  the  church ;  what- 
ever persecution  or  opposition  may  arise  unto  you  on  that 
account?"* 


Letter  II. — The  Sermon  Criticised. 

Dear  Sir, 

A  full  compliance  with  your  letter  requires  that  I  should  give 
you  some  account  of  our  arguments  against  the  sermon.  Here 
the  Sketch  shows  a  degree  of  dishonesty  which  is  truly  pitia- 
ble. In  the  real  debate,  Mr.  Engles,  of  the  7th  Church,  aston- 
ished and  delighted  his  friends,  and  (permit  me  to  say)  the 
friends  of  Jesus  ;  and  he  obtained  the  honour  of  the  leer  malign 
from  his  enemies  :  yet  in  the  Sketch,  he  is  no  higher  than  an 
ordinary  school-boy.  As  for  Dr.  Green,  the  JVestor  of  our  little 
band,  the  Reporter  appeared  determined  to  mark  him  for  the 
charge  of  dotage,  insinuated  againSt  the  minority,  without  a 
decent  apology,  by  the  "  hopeful  youth,"  who  now  succeeds 
him  in  the  pastoral  charge.  This  was  according  to  the  maxim, 
that  peculiar  severity  should  be  shown  to  the  ringleader  of  an 
obnoxious  body.  Yet  if  God  were  pleased  to  send  again  on 
earth,  the  Witherspoons,  the  Rodgerses,  the  M'Whorters,  and 
the  Tennents,  the  gigantic  associates  of  his  earlier  days,  in 
rearing  and  defending  our  present  constitution,  they  would  not 
be  ashamed  of  the  fidelity  or  consistency,  the  talents  or  firmness, 
of  this  "  Last  of  the  Greeks.^^  Dr.  Green,  however,  has  been 
heard  to  say,  that  the  greatest  speech  made  during  the  whole 
presbytery,  was  by  Dr.  Jancway,  on  the  fourth  day-  Yet  he 
did  not  vote,  because,  before  the  vote  was  taken,  he  was  dis- 
missed, at  his  own  request,  to  join  the  Dutch  Reformed  Church, 
to  whose  congregation  in  New  Brunswick  he  was  called.  This 
address  occupied  a  considerable  time,  and  proved,  most  clearly, 
the  gross  inconsistency  of  calling  the  author  of  that  sermon  to 
a  Presbyterian  congregation.  Its  unanswerable  force  may  be, 
in  some  measure,  estimated,  by  its  drawing  an  insult  instead  of 
a  refiitation,  from  that  specimen  of  politeness,  Dr.  M'Auley ; 
and  thus  giving  Dr.  Janeway  an  opportunity  of  showing  that  he 
was  as  humble  as  he  was  able ;  and  that  he  possessed,  in  an 
eminent  degree,  that  true  Christian  modesty,  about  which  Dr. 
M'Auley,  on  the  last  day,  with  such  unfeeling  irony,  taunted 
the  minority,  merely  because  they  continued  their  constitutional 
opposition  to  the  arbitrary  measures  of  the  majority.  It  is  not 
improbable  that  Dr.  Janeway's  speech  had  considerable  influ- 
ence in  making  the  minority  as  large  as  it  was.  Yet  the  author 
of  the  Sketch,  after  pretending  to  take  notes,  has  not  recorded 

♦Form  of  Gov.  chap.  14,  sect.  12,  Qu.  6. 


(  28  ) 

a  word  of  this  speech,  nor  even  the  name  of  the  speaker;  but 
has  added,  upon  his  own  responsibility,  ten  votes  to  the  real 
number  of  the  majority,  that  he  might  set  the  public  to  won- 
dering at  our  "  very  small  minority  indeed,  when  we  consider 
how  great  an  influence  Dr.  Green  has  hitherto  possessed  in  this 
Presbytery."*  This  error  is  like  the  addition  of  an  inch  in  a 
man's  nose. 

I  shall  not  attempt  to  give  you  the  arguments  of  the  above 
speakers  or  the  other  members  of  the  Minority,  who  owned  their 
Master  in  the  midst  of  reproach.  All  that  I  can  do,  is,  to  give 
you  a  brief  out-line  of  my  own  argument,  and  then  touch  upon 
the  arguments  resorted  to  by  the  Majority.  On  the  merits  of 
Mr.  Barnes'  sermon,  I  made  three  addresses ;  one  on  the  fore- 
noon of  the  2nd  day,  and  one  on  the  afternoon  of  the  4th  day, 
against  the  motion  for  granting  leave  to  call  the  candidate  ;  the 
other  on  the  forenoon  of  the  6th  day,  against  the  motion  for  re- 
ceiving him.  In  the  two  former  I  endeavoured  to  show  that  Mr. 
Barnes'  sermon,  called  "The  way  of  Salvation,"  was  censura- 
ble for  the  following  reasons  :  1.  It  denied  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin.  2.  It  taught  a  way  of  salvation  without  a  gospel 
justification.  3.  It  denied  that  Christ  bore  the  penalty  of  the 
law.  4.  It  denied  the  efficacy  of  the  atonement.  When  about 
to  proceed  to  a  5th  particular,  circumstances  induced  me  to 
agree  that  the  motion  should  be  put. 

On  the  morning  of  the  6th  day,  many  new  members  made 
their  appearance,  who,  of  course,  had  heard  nothing  that  went 
before.  On  this  account  it  became  necessary  to  read  again 
certain  exceptionable  passages  of  the  sermon,  and  contrast  them 
with  a  few  passages  of  our  constitution.  This  was  all  the  repe- 
tition used  on  the  occasion ;  notwithstanding  the  artful  insinu- 
ation of  the  Reporter ;  I  say,  artful,  because  he  shows  that  he 
did  not  believe  what  he  tried  to  make  others  believe.  In  this 
address,  the  objections  to  Mr.  Barnes'  sermon  were  the  fol- 
lowing. 

1.  While  asserting  his  supreme  responsibility  to  God,  in 
which  we  all  agree,  he  adds,  that  in  his  preaching,  "  He  is 
supposed  to  be  responsible  not  at  all  for  its  impinging  on  any 
theological  system  ;  nor  is  he  to  be  cramped  by  any  frame-work 
of  faith  that  has  been  reared  around  the  Bible."  (p.  12,  note.) 
Compare  this  with  the  fourth  question  which  he  answered  in  his 
ordination  :  "  Do  you  promise  subjection  to  your  brethren  in  the 
Lord  V  How  he  can  be  subject  to  his  brethren,  and  yet  be 
"  responsible  not  at  all,''''  for  violating  their  constitution,  it  is 
hard  to  see.  It  may  be  said,  as  he  argues  in  one  instance, 
(note  in  pp.  6,  7.)  that  our  Confession  is  not  "  in  the  Lord." 
But  let  him  remember  what  answer  he  gave,  and  what  answer 
he  wishes  to  give  again,  to  the  following  question  :  "  Do  you 

*  Sketch,  p.  5. 


(      >iy      ) 

sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the.  Confession  of  Faith  of  this 
church,  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy- 
Scriptures'?"  He  is  not  bound  by  the  civil  law  contrary  to  the 
law  of  God;  but  when  he  has  voluntarily  adopted  the  code, 
and  sworn  civil  subjection  to  it,  is  he,  in  his  conduct,  "responsi- 
ble not  at  all  for  its  impinging"  on  that  code '?  Is  he  not  "  to 
be  cramped  by  any  frame-work  of "  polity  "that  has  been  reared 
around  the  Bible*?"  So  said  the  men  of  Munster,  concerning 
both  church  and  slate  ;  and  the  reason  why  our  fair-weather 
reformers  hold  a  responsibility  to  the  state,  and  not  to  the 
church,  is,  that  they  have  much  stronger  corporeal  than  moral 
sensibilities. 

2.  The  sermon  denies  that  men  are  answerable  for  the  first 
sin  of  Adam  :  as  follows,  viz.  "  It  [the  Bible]  does  not  say,  as 
I  suppose,  that  the  sinner  is  held  to  be  personally  answerable 
for  the  transgressions  of  Adam,  or  of  any  other  man."  (p.  6.)  In 
a  note  he  admits  that  this  language  "  does  not  accord  with  that 
used  on  the  same  subject  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  in 
other  standards  of  doctrine."  Remember  that  the  Assembly  of 
1798  censured  Mr.  Hezekiali  Balch  for  "in  effect  setting  aside 
the  idea  of  Adam's  being  the  federal  head  or  representative  of 
his  descendants,  and  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  covenant  of 
works."* 

3.  He  holds  such  a  natural  ability  for  spiritual  and  accept- 
able service,  as  the  Bible  and  our  Confession  consider  incon- 
sistent with  that  entire  corruption  which  forms  one  feature  of 
original  sin.  He  says,  "  Men  have  power  enough  in  themselves 
to  hate  both  God  and  their  fellow-men;  and  it  requires  less 
physical  power  to  love  God  than  to  hate  him."  "  It  is  found 
that  it  is  far  easier  to  be  reconciled  to  God,  and  love  him, 
than  to  remain  at  war,  and  oppose  him."  (p.  14.)  Our  Confes- 
sion says,  that  by  the  fall  men  "  are  utterly  indisposed,  disabled, 
and  made  opposite  to  all  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil." 
(ch.  vi.  4.)  "  Their  ability  to  do  good  works  is  not  at  all  of 
themselves,  but  wholly  from  the  Spirit  of  Christ."  (ch.  xvi.  sect. 
3.)  In  a  note  on  the  same  page,  Mr.  Barnes  says,  "If  God 
requires  more  of  men  than  in  any  sense  they  are  able  to  per- 
form, then,  in  the  practical  judgment  of  all  men,  according  to 
the  reason  he  has  given  them,  he  is  unjust."  To  the  same 
amount  Mr.  W.  C.  Davis  published  the  following  words,  viz. 
"  If  God  has  to  plant  all  the  principal  parts  of  salvation  in  a 
sinner's  heart,  to  enable  him  to  believe,  the  gospel  plan  is  quite 
out  of  his  reach,  and  consequently  does  not  suit  his  case;  and 
it  must  be  impossible  for  God  to  condemn  a  man  for  unbelief; 
for  no  just  law  condemns  or  criminates  any  person  for  not  doing 
what  he  cannot  do."  It  is  true  that  Dr.  Ely  considers  Mr.  Barnes' 
words,  "in  any  sense,"  a  complete  protection  to  him  from  the 

♦  Digest,  p.  130. 


(  30  ) 

charge  of  error  :  but  this  phrase  is  no  better  qualification  to  the 
passage  from  Mr.  Barnes,  than  the  word  "  all"  was  to  the  pas- 
sage from  Mr.  Davis  :  yet  the  General  Assembly  of  1810  disap- 
proved of  these  sentiments,  and  "The  Assembly  do  judge,  and 
hereby  do  declare,  that  the  preaching  or  publishing  them  ought 
to  subject  the  person  or  persons  so  doing  to  be  dealt  with  by 
their  respective  Presbyteries,  according  to  the  discipline  of  the 
church  relative  to  the  propagation  of  errors."*  This  sentence, 
Dr.  Ely,  in  his  Theological  Review  of  July,  1819,  approved. 
This  is  a  subject  on  which  he  used  to  contend  boldly  :  but  his 
zeal,  of  late,  has  taken  a  turn  from  ecclesiastical  to  political 
reformation;  which  makes  one  fear  that  his  former  heroism 
partook  more  of  metaphysical  blustering,  than  the  spirit  of 
martyrdom. 

4.  His  sermon  presents  a  phenomenon  in  a  Presbyterian 
church;  a  Way  of  Salvation,  without  gospel  justification.  The 
manner  in  which  it  has  been  handled  presents  another  pheno- 
menon. Ten  leading  men  of  the  1st  Church  publish  a  piece 
written,  (as  one  of  them  declared  in  Presbytery,)  by  Dr.  Wilson, 
their  former  Pastor,  asserting  that  the  sermon  does  contain  the 
doctrine  of  justification  ;  and  Mr.  Barnes  writes  a  letter  to  Dr. 
Ely,  lamenting  that  it  does  not  contain  the  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion. To  make  up  the  deficiency.  Dr.  Ely,  his  professed  advo- 
cate, examines  him  privately,  and  manufactures  an  article  on 
the  subject,  which  Mr.  Barnes  readily  adopts.  We  also  ask  the 
liberty  of  examining;  but  here  the  candidate  demurs.  He  is 
very  willing  to  be  examined  by  his  own  attorney,  but  not  by 
the  opposite  counsel;  for  a  cross-examination  often  undoes  all 
that  went  before  it.  That  it  would  be  so  in  the  present  case, 
the  whole  tenor  of  Mr.  Barnes'  sermon  proves.  The  man  who 
can  write  that  production  must  repent  of  his  errors,  when  he 
believes  in  that  key-stone  of  the  Reformation,  forensic justif- 
calion,  an  essential  doctrine  of  the  Bible  and  of  our  Confession. 

5.  The  sermon  asserts  the  doctrine  of  an  indefinite  atone- 
ment. It  says,  "  This  atonement  was  for  all  men.  It  was  an 
offering  made  for  the  race.  It  had  not  respect  so  much  to  indi- 
viduals, as  to  the  law  and  perfections  of  God and  had  no 

particular  reference  to  any  class  of  men."  (p.  11.)  Our  Consti- 
tution considers  redemption  as  purchased  for  believers.  "  Re- 
demption is  certainly  applied,  and  eftectually  communicated  to 
all  those  for  whom  Christ  hath  purchased  it;  who  are  in  time 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  enabled  to  believe  in  Christ;  according  to 
the  gospel."  It  declares  that  redemption  is  effected  for  the 
elect.  "  Wherefore,  they  who  are  elected,  being  fallen  in  Adam, 

are  redeemed  by  Christ Neither  are  any  other  redeemed  by 

Christ but  the  elect  only."     His  atonement  is  for  his  people. 

"Christ  executeth  the  oflSce  of  a  Priest  in  his  once  offering 

*  Digest,  pp.  147,  148. 


(     ^1     ) 

himself  a  sacrifice  without  spot  to  God,  to  be  a  reconciliation 
for  the  sins  of  his  people;  and  in  making  continual  intercession 
for  them."  That  is,  for  his  jieople,  not  for  the  world,  but  for 
them  whom  the  Father  had  given  him,  in  the  decree  of  election. 
Here  there  is  no  room  for  the  distinction  which  some  make 
between  atonement  and  redemption.  Have  Chx'xsi^s  priesthood, 
sacrifice,  and  reconciliation  nothing  to  do  with  his  atonement  ? 
Yet,  in  this  last  authority,  he  is  a  Priest,  Sacrifice,  and  Recon- 
ciliation, (that  is,  Atonement)  for  the  sins  of  his  people,  for 
whom  he  intercedes.  Therefore  our  Confession  expressly  pro- 
nounces "  Christ's  one  only  sacrifice,  the  alone  propitiation 
[that  is,  atonement^  for  all  the  sins  of  the  elect." 

G.  Of  a  piece  with  the  above  error,  and  naturally  flowing  from 
it,  the  sermon  teaches  the  inefjicacy  of  the  atonement ;  and  pub- 
lishes it  as  the  sentiment  of  one  of  tlic  greatest  enemies  to  this 
error  which  the  church  has  seen  for  many  centuries.  From  the 
great  Dr.  Owen,  he  professes  to  quote  the  following  isolated 
sentence,  viz.  "The  atonement  of  itself,  secured  the  salvation 
of  no  one."  (p.  10.)  The  sermon  does  not  say  where  these 
words  may  be  found  in  Dr.  Owen's  works ;  nor  has  its  author 
informed  us,  although  inquiry  was  made,  in  his  presence,  in  the 
Presbytery! 

This  is  a  convenient  place  for  showing  the  honesty  of  our 
Reporter  in  a  particular  not  yet  noticed.  It  reads  as  follows, 
viz.  "  He  [Mr.  M'Calla]  read  quotations  from  Owen,  Edwards, 
and  some  others.  It  is  remarkable  that  he  quoted  nothing  from 
the  Bible,  and  nothing  from  the  early  Fathers.  He  made  one 
or  two  quotations  from  Calvin  ;  that  was  to  prove  the  doctrine 
of  justification  by  faith  in  Christ."*  The  truth  is,  that  to  prove 
the  doctrine  of  justification,  I  quoted  nothing  from  Calvin.  But 
remember  that  towards  the  close  of  Mr.  Barnes'  sermon,  he 
says  concerning  the  doctrines  which  it  contains,"  "  This  is 
Calvinism!!'^  (p.  27.)  P^ow  he  has  confessed  that  it  does  not 
contain  the  doctrine  of  justification,  (which  omission  of  itself,  is 
Anti-calvinistic  enough,  truly,)  but  I  chose  to  confront  him  with 
Calvin  in  the  doctrines  which  his  sermon  did  contain.  He  calls 
himself  a  Presbyterian  ;  I  confronted  him  with  our  constitution. 
Men  of  hjs  views  call  themselves  Edwardites,  and  he  referred  to 
Edwards  ;  I  confronted  him  with  Edwards.  He  professed  to 
quote  Owen  in  favour  of  an  inefiectual  atonement.  I  read 
pages  from  him,  in  pointed  and  irrcconcilcnble  opposition  to 
this  error.  Mr.  Barnes  quoted  nothing  IVom  the  eaily  Fathers  ; 
and  therefore  I  quoted  nothing  from  them.  The  truth  is,  his 
theology  was  not  known  in  the  church  militant,  until  the  early 
Fathers  were  discharged  from  service.  In  their  days  the  doc- 
trines of  Dr.  Ely's  contrast  every  where  prevailed.  This  was 
the  good  old  way.     But  in  the  4th  century,  Tdr.  Barnes'  way  of 

*  Sketch,  p.  15. 


(         32  )         , 

salvation  was  introduced  by  Pelagius  ;  and  in  his  first  trial  by  a 
Presbytery,  a  system  of  harmony,  similar  to  the  scheme  propos- 
ed by  Dr.  Ely,  procured  him  an  honourable  acquittal  by  a  much 
greater  majority  than  the  Reporter  boasts  in.  favour  of  Mr. 
Barnes.  As  for  his  emphatic  assertion  that  1  quoted  nothing 
from  the  Bible ;  he  ought  to  recollect  that  this  may  be  settled 
by  ocular  evidence.  I  cannot  now  say  exactly  how  much  scrip- 
ture Mr.  Barnes  quotes  in  his  way  of  salvation  :  but  I  think  that 
I  am  within  bounds,  when  I  say  that  the  proportion  of  scripture 
in  my  speeches  and  his  sermon,  is  forty  to  one  in  my  favour. 

There  is  a  short  passage  now  before  me  whch  I  read  to  the 
Presbytery,  which  will  show  that  Mr.  Barnes  has  abused  Dr. 
Owen  as  much  as  his  Reporter  has  wronged  me,  viz.  "  But  he 
was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised  for  our 
iniquities,  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  him,  and 
ivith  his  stripes  we  are  healed.  His  wounding  and  our  healing, 
impetration  and  application,  his  chastisement  and  our  peace  are 
inseparably  connected.^'*  To  me  it  appears  that  Isaiah  and 
Owen  both  thought  that  the  atonement  of  Christ  and  the  salva- 
tion of  his  people  were  inseparable,  and  that  the  former  procured 
the  latter.  But  the  advocates  of  a  governmental  atonement, 
would  take  off  our  confidence  from  the  meritorious  satisfaction 
of  Christ,  and  refer  us  to  a  supposed  arbitrary  promise  of  God, 
and  to  the  fulfilment  of  conditions  on  our  part.  The  following 
is  Mr.  Barnes'  context  so  much  admired  by  Dr.  Ely,  viz.  "The 
atonement  secured  the  salvation  of  no  one,  except  as  God  had 
promised  his  Son  that  he  should  see  of  the  travail  of  his  soul, 
and  except  on  the  condition  of  repentance  and  faith."  In  answer 
to  this  exception,  Owen  says,  "  How  vain  is  it  to  except  that 
these  things  were  not  bestowed  absolutely  upon  us,  but  upon 
condition,  and  therefore  were  so  procured :  seeing  that  the  very 
condition  itself  is  also  merited  and  procured."!  Thus  on  the 
69th  Question  of  the  Larger  Catechism.  Ridgley,  edited  by  Mr. 
Barnes'  predecessor,  says,  "  The  application  thereof  does  not 
depend  on  the  will  of  man,  or  on  some  uncertain  conditions, 
which  God  expects  we  shall  perform,  that  so  the  death  of  Christ 
might  be  rendered  effectual ;  for  whatever  condition  can  be 
assigned  as  conducive  hereunto,  it  is  the  purchase  of  Christ's 
death."  In  accordance  with  which  our  Creed  says,  "The  Lord 
Jesus,  by  his  perfect  obedience  and  sacrifice  of  himself,  which 
he,  through  the  Eternal  Spirit,  once  offered  up  unto  God,  hath 
fully  satisfied  the  justice  of  his  Father;  and  purchased,  not  only 
reconciliation,  but  an  everlasting  inheritance  in  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven,  for  all  those  whom  the  Father  hath  given  unto  Aim." J 

7.  The  sermon  denies  that  Christ  bore  the  penalty  of  the 

*  Owen's  Death  of  Death  in  the  death  of  Christ,  Book  2,  chap.  4,  p.  109, 
of  the  Philadelphia  Edition. 

t  The  same.  Book  3,  chap.  10,  Argument  4. 
^  Confess,  of  Faith,  chap.  8,  sect.  5. 


(         33         ) 

law.  It  says,  "  He  did  not  endure,  indeed,  the  jienalty  of  the 
law"  (p.  10.)  Dr.  Ely  justifies  this  by  the  context,  which  says 
that  "He  died  in  the  place  of  sinners."  But  to  die  in  the  place 
of  sinners,  without  enduring  the  penalty  of  the  law,  is  what  can 
be  said  of  the  Roman  Decius;  and  surely  is  not  the  scriptural 
nor  Calvinistic  way  of  salvation.  But  the  Dr.  thinks  that  Mr. 
Barnes  has  secured  himself  from  censure  by  what  he  himself 
calls  "  an  inaccurate  explanation  :"  that  is,  he  explains  penalty 
in  such  a  manner,  that  the  very  explanation  itself  denies  the 
possibility  of  its  being  endured  by  a  substitute!*  Suppose  that 
Mr.  Barnes  had  said  that  Christ  did  not  bear  the  curse  of  the 
law:  could  a  novel,  arbitrary,  and  artful  explanation,  justify 
him*?  Yet  the  true  church  has  always  understood  these  words 
to  amount  to  the  same  thing.  The  Jesuits  once  stopped  the 
mouth  of  Dominican  ortliodoxy,  merely  by  an  inaccurate  expla- 
nation, for  the  sake  of  harmony.  But  Pascal,  who  followed  the 
doctrine  of  the  Contrast,  said,  "  You  have  received  the  name 
of  her  enemy  into  the  church,  which  is  as  baneful  as  having 
received   the   enemy   himself      JVames   are   inseparable    from 

things It  will  never  do;  the  explanation  will   be  detested; 

the  world  uses  more  sincerity  on  the  most  unimportant  occa- 
sions; the  Jesuits  will  triumph it  will  be  of  no  avail  for  the 

Dominicans  to  protest  that  they  impute  a  different  sense  to  the 
expression.  The  people  accustomed  to  the  general  use  of  the 
word,  will  not  listen  to  their  explanation." f  But  according  to 
Dr.  Ely's  principle,  a  man  may  be  perfectly  justifiable  in  casting 
fire-brands,  arrows,  and  death,  if  he  will  afterward  explain  him- 
self to  be  in  sport.  For  reasons  given  already,  I  read  many 
things  from  Calvin,  Owen,  and  Edwards,  to  show  that  they 
had  no  notion  of  being  robbed  of  this  all-important  truth  by 
heretical  sophistry. 

8.  The  sermon  denies  the  doctrine  oi  imputation.  These  are 
his  words,  viz.  "  The  notion  of  imputing  sin  is  an  invention  of 
modern  times :  it  is  not,  it  is  believed,  the  doctrine  of  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith."  As  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  he  says,  "It 
is  manifest,  so  far  as  it  is  capable  of  interpretation,  that  it  is 
intended  to  convey  the  idea,  not  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  im- 
puted to  us,  or  set  over  to  our  account ;  but  that  there  was  a 
personal  identity  constituted  between  Adam  and  his  posterity, 
so  that  it  was  really  our  act,  and  ours  only,  after  all,  tiiat  is 
chargeable  on  us.  This  was  the  idea  of  Edwards."  (p.  7,  note.) 
The  above  passages  are  equally  opposed  to  the  imputation  of 
our  sins  to  Christ ;  and  the  tenor  of  the  note  and  of  the  sermon 
evidently  militate  against  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteous- 
ness to  us  ;  notwithstanding  the  creed  which  Dr.  Ely.  wrote  for 

♦These  arc  his  words,  viz.  •*  The  fienalty  of  the  lazi'  is  what  God  will 
inflict  on  its  unredeemed  violators— neither  more  nor  less."  (p.  10.  note.) 

t  Letter  2d  of  Pascal's  Provincial  Letters,  New  York  and  Boston  edition, 
pp.  42.  37. 

E  , 


(  34  ) 

him,  to  remedy  this  evil.  Our  Confession,  in  which  he  can  see 
no  imputation  of  sin,  says,  concerning  our  first  parents,  "  They 
being  the  root  of  all  mankind,  the  guilt  of  this  sin  was  imputed, 
and  the  same  death  in  sin  and  corrupted  nature  conveyed,  to 
all  their  posterity,  descending  from  them  by  ordinary  genera- 
tion."* On  the  imputation  of  our  sins  to  Christ,  and  of  his 
righteousness  to  us,  I  read  many  declarations  from  Mr.  Barnes' 
own  authorities;  among  which  take  the  following  from  Calvin. 
"The  Son  of  God,  though  perfectly  free  from  all  sin,  neverthe- 
less assumed  the  disgrace  and  ignominy  of  our  iniquities;  and 
on  the  other  hand  arrayed  us  in  his  purity."  "  Now  it  is  evident 
what  the  prophet  meant  when  he  said,  the  Lord  hath  laid  on 
him  the  iniquity  of  us  all;  namely,  that  when  he  was  about  to 
expiate  our  sins,  they  were  transferred  to  him  by  imputation.^' -f 


Letter  III. — The  Majority  answered. 

Dear  Sir, 

I  am  truly  sorry  to  be  so  long  coming  to  the  various  argu- 
ments of  the  majority,  for  the  course  which  they  pursued. 

1.  They  argued  that  it  was  a  point  of  order,  which  occa- 
sioned them  to  take  the  course  they  did.  In  the  Bible  it  is  a 
point  of  order  to  try  the  spirits,  and  beware  of  false  teachers, 
and  guard  the  flock,  and  watch  the  city,  and  stand  in  the  gap, 
and  contend  earnestly  for  the  faith.  Now  if  there  were  an  article 
of  order  in  our  Constitution,  which  required  that  we  should  all 
be  dumb  dogs  that  cannot  bark,  hirelings  which  flee  when  the 
wolf  Cometh,  or  traitors  which  admit  the  enemy  into  the  camp 
or  city,  without  a  scriptural  countersign,  it  is  evident  that  such 
an  article  would  impinge  upon  our  inspired  standard.  But  we 
have  already  shown  that  the  Bible,  the  church  of  Scotland,  our 
constitution  and  acts  of  Assembly,  with  the  gentlemen  of  Prince- 
ton, agree  with  the  minority,  in  believing  it  a  glorious  feature 
of  Presbyterianism,  that  the  point  of  order  is  exactly  the  other 
way. 

2.  They  urged,  in  his  justification,  that  he  had  preached 
other  sermons  which  were  approved.  They  urged,  also,  that  he 
had  agreed  to  articles  of  belief  drawn  up  for  the  occasion  by 
Dr.  Ely ;  concerning  which  the  Sketch  says,  "  They  were  such 
as  THE  MOST  RIGID  HoPKiNsiAN  would  not  objcct  to.'^  (p.  18, 
note.)  It  was  also  warmly  pleaded  that  Mr.  Barnes  had  adopted 
our  own  Constitution,  and  was  willing  to  do  it  again.  Now  we 
have  shown  that  his  sermon  expressly  attributes  to  our  Confes- 
sion a  great  absurdity,  and  professes  to  differ  from  it,  in  the 
very  way  for  which  Mr.  Balch  was  censured.    Is  it  no  objection 

*  Chap.  6.  sect.  3.  f  Institutes,  Book  2,  chap.  16,  sect.  6  . 


(         35         ) 

to  a  minister  that  he  knowingly  adopts  creeds  which  are  funda- 
mentally opposite?  A  man  holds  the  Koran  in  one  hand  and 
the  Bible  in  the  other,  and  swears  to  both :  does  this  make  Ma- 
hometanism  innocent'? 

3.  During  Mr.  Barnes'  absence,  it  was  pleaded  that  we 
could  not  understand  the  sermon,  without  the  looks,  tones,  and 
gestures  of  the  living  author.  Yet  we  were  told,  from  the  same 
quarter,  that  the  congregation  understood  it,  and  approved  of  it  so 
highly  as  to  make  out  a  call  before  they  ever  saw  the  living 
author.  Moreover,  when  he  came  to  Presbytery  we  wished  to 
examine  him,  and  were  not  permitted. 

4.  They  pleaded  that  it  was  a  hasty  production.  Yet  it 
turns  out  that  about  a  year  elapsed  between  different  times  of 
preaching  it,  and  it  was  then  published  after  a  careful  revision, 
and  all  the  notes,  containing  much  of  the  most  exceptionable 
matter,  added. 

5.  The  argument  which  was  plied,  and  often  plied,  most 
handsomely  and  impressively,  was,  that  the  sermon  was  com- 
posed while  the  minister's  mind  was  under  the  inexpressible 
pressure  of  a  revival.  It  is  often  hinted  that  a  revival  is  a  thing 
that  we  ignorantly  oppose ;  and  that  in  comparison  with  each 
other,  the  revival  and  anti-revival  men  are  as  patricians  and 
plebeians.  I  ardently  desire  a  revival  of  ?rwe  religion.  But  let 
us  see  whether  some  things  called  revivals,  may  not  be  worthy 
of  opposition.  Ought  I  to  admire  a  revival  which  makes  a  man 
deny  his  guilt  in  Adam,  and  his  helplessness  in  himself?  Does  a 
true  revival  excite  a  minister  to  declare  that  the  imputation  of 
sin  is  a  novel  doctrine,  that  Christ  did  not  endure  the  penalty  of 
the  law,  and  that  the  atonement,  of  itself,  secures  the  salvation 
of  no  man '?"  Is  the  pressure  of  a  true  revival,  of  such  a  des- 
cription, as  to  make  a  minister  forget,  during  a  whole  year,  that 

justification  belongs  to  the  true  lo ay  of  salvation;  and  never 
think  of  it,  until  reminded  of  it  by  one  of  our  Minority,  in  a  re- 
view of  his  sermon  9  Would  that  he  could  then  think  of  it 
aright ! 

6.  It  was  vehemently  urged  in  favour  of  Mr  Barnes,  that  he  was 
a  man  of  wonderful  piety  and  devotion,  talents  and  success.  He 
was  thus  considered  by  Mr.  Sanford,  the  same  member  who  plain- 
ly hinted  that  the  Minority  (which  contained  his  white  headed 
Elder,  Mr.  Brown,  and  his  two  predecessors  in  the  pastoral 
office,  Drs.  Green  and  Janeway,)  were  in  their  dotage.  Now  I 
am  willing  to  try  the  question,  to  whom  this  term  is  most  applica- 
ble; to  these  truly  venerable  fathers,  or  to  the  hopeful  youth  who 
has  thus  insulted  them.  To  insist  upon  our  reception  of  Mr. 
Barnes,  as  a  man  of  extraordinary  piety  and  devotion,  is  the 
same  plea  which  was  used  by  the  enemies  of  Troy  for  introduc- 
ing the  famous  wooden  horse  into  their  city:  it  was  presented  as  a 
pious  and  devout  offering  to  their  gods.  There  was  a  Minority  in 
the  city  opposed  to  receiving  the  favour.  The  event  showed  whe- 


(  36         ) 

ther  they  were  the  dotards  or  not.  But  if,  previous  to  its  intro- 
duction, this  Minority  had  been  allowed,  by  a  vote  of  37  to  10,  to 
examine  the  interior  of  this  gigantic  structure,  and  had  exposed 
to  the  public  gaze  its  truly  talented  contents,  with  their  jrious 
swords,  and  devout  battle-axes,  all  intended  for  the  destruction 
of  Troy  ;  and  if,  after  this,  they  had  been  overruled  by  a  vote  to 
receive  the  engine  of  destruction,  would  the  rejectors  or  the  re- 
ceivers  have  been  the  dotards  ?  Before  Mr.  Barnes  was  receiv- 
ed amongst  us,  it  was  shown,  from  his  sermon,  that  his  piety  was 
independent  of  the  vicarious  satisfaction  of  Christ;  and  that  his 
devotion  could  flame,  for  a  whole  year,  through  the  inexpressi- 
ble extacies  of  a  professed  revival,  without  once  acknowledging 
or  depending  upon  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ,  in  evan- 
gelical justification.  His  success  was,  of  course,  in  proselyting 
to  his  system,  and  his  talents  were  enlisted  in  opposition  to  our 
system.  Surely,  then,  we  must  be  dotards  not  to  receive  a  man 
so  highly  recommended. 

7.  The  opposition  of  the  Methodists  to  Mr.  Barnes  was  very 
plausibly  advanced  in  his  defence.  But  every  faithful  minister 
may  expect  persecution ;  and  he  should,  through  divine  help, 
maintain  the  truth  in  despite  of  it,  according  to  his  ordination 
vows.  Yet  if  I  may  judge  from  the  Methodist  "  Advocate"  of 
March  19th,  their  persecution  is  pretty  much  like  that  of  which 
we  are  accused.  They  prove  that  Mr.  Barnes'  pretensions  to 
Calvinism  are  uncandid  ;  that  his  sermon  and  our  Confession 
of  Faith  are  irreconcileably  opposed  to  each  other  ;  and  that 
honesty  requires  him  to  renounce  his  vows  of  ordination  as  pub- 
licly as  he  made  them. 

8.  The  spirit  of  the  age  was  considered  as  demanding  far 
greater  liberality  than  the  Minority  approved.  Every  one  was 
to  be  allowed  to  interpret  the  scriptures  and  the  constitution  for 
himself.  This,  in  my  judgment,  is  a  treacherous  attempt  to  jus- 
tify the  slander,  that  our  standards  have  any  or  every  meanmg, 
even  opposite  meanings,  and,  of  course,  no  meaning.  But  if 
Presbyterians  advocate  such  an  unhallowed  latitude  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  their  own  constitution,  ought  they  to  condemn 
Anti-presbyterians  for  acting  accordingly  *?  Our  church  disavows 
a  wish  for  a  national  establishment;  and  appeals  to  our  constitu- 
tion for  what  they  say.  But  remember  that  the  liberal  spirit  of 
the  age  has  made  our  constitution  like  a  nose  of  wax.  Accord- 
ingly, a  Pennsylvania  Editor  undertakes  to  prove  from  our 
constitution  and  acts  of  Assembly,  that  we  professedly  aim  at  a 
union  of  church  and  state.  He  was  contradicted  by  one  of  the 
liberal  Majority,  in  severer  language  than  that  of  the  Metho- 
dists against  Mr.  Barnes.  From  this  it  is  evident  that  they  have 
two  opposite  rules  of  interpretation,  one  for  themselves,  the 
other  for  their  antagonists.  Infidel  Liberals  are  required  to 
interpret  language  in  its  real,  simple,  plain,  honest,  meaning; 
which   interpretation    would    certainly    give    our   constitution 


credit  for  being  opposed  to  a  union  of  church  and  state : 
But  Presbyterian  liberals,  like  Dr.  Ely,  and  Messrs.  Bradford, 
Sanford,  and  Patterson,  are  allowed  to  give  whats(»ever  explana- 
tion their  taste  may  dictate,  or  the  occasion  may  require.  This 
leaves  the  latter  class  at  liberty  to  practise  the  rule  prescribed 
to  infidels  whenever  they  think  proper.  This  was  done  exten- 
sively by  Dr.  Ely,  in  his  old  work,  called  "  A  Contrast  between 
Calvinism  and  Hopkinsianism."  But  he  has  promised  us  a  new 
work  to  be  called  "  A  Harmony;"  in  which  we  may  expect  to 
see  liherality  liberalized.  Permit  me  to  give  you  an  instance  of 
his  application  of  both  these  rules  to  the  same  subject,  on  differ- 
en,t  occasions.  The  Executive  Committee  of  the  Board  of  Mis- 
sions refused  to  employ  two  candidates,  because  they  believed 
that  God  was  the  author  of  sin.  Dr.  Anderson,  their  theolo- 
gical instructor,  wrote  a  violent  complaint  to  the  Board,  saying 
that  neither  he  nor  his  students  believed  that  God  was  the 
AUTHOR  of  sin,  but  only  that  he  was  the  cause  of  sin ! !  Dr. 
Ely,  who  belonged  both  to  the  committee  and  the  Board, 
practised  the  Contrast  rule  of  interpretation  on  this  occa- 
sion, and  said  that  the  two  expressions  meant  the  same  thing. 
He,  therefore,  rejected  the  applicants  who  had  learned  these 
horrible  sentiments  from  Dr.  Anderson.  Yet,  after  Mr.  Barnes' 
reception,  Dr.  Ely  comes  out  in  the  Philadelphian  of  July  30th, 
and  opens  the  arms  of  his  liberality  to  Dr.  Anderson,  the  teacher 
of  these  abhorred  errors,  allows  him  to  distinguish  between 
author  and  cause,  and  then  apologizes  for  him,  by  saying  that  he 
does  not  intend  "to  charge  his  Maker  with  any  thing  morally 
evil."  This  is  the  Harmony  rule.  You  see  the  different  re- 
sults of  the  two  rules.  The  latter  acquits  the  seducer,  after  the 
former  had  punished  his  dupes.  These  two  rules  are  strikingly  ex- 
emplified in  two  adjacent  columns  of  the  paper  referred  to.  The 
right  hand  column  contains  a  descant  on  the  word  Shibboleth, 
in  which  he  strikes  and  scatters  Pagans,  Mahometans,  and  Infi- 
dels, Arminians,  Independents,  and  Prelatists,  Baptists,  Soci- 
nians,  and  Quakers.  He  also  gives  a  broad-side  against  New- 
school  Calvinists,  who  err  on  original  sin,  natural  ability,  atone- 
ment, and  justification.  This  is  according  to  the  Contrast  ru\e. 
In  the  left  hand  column,  he  promises  his  new  Harmony ;  throws 
his  mantle  over  metaphysicial  and  speculative  divines,  pleads 
for  union,  and  says  that  he  "  would  rather  narrow  than  luiden 
the  differences  which  exist  among  renewed  men."  You  can 
discover  the  results  of  these  two  rules,  in  this  case,  by  inquiring 
whom  the  Doctor  means  by  renewed  men.  This  you  may  learn 
from  another  publication  of  his,  in  which  he  speaks  as  follows, 
viz.  "  We  think  that  an  v^rian,  an  Arminian,  a  llojjkinsian, 
and  a  Lniversalist,  may  give  us  reason  to  suppose  that  he  is  a 
RENEWED  MAN."*    It  is  evident  that  our  liberals  are  now  in  the 

•Theological  Review,  vol,  1,  p.  158, 


flood  tide  of  successful  experiment  in  narrowing,  rather  than 
widening  the  differences  between  them  and  their  renewed  bre- 
thren last  mentioned  :  but  the  minority  still  prefer  some  distinc- 
tion between  the  precious  and  the  vile. 

9.  One  of  Dr.  Ely's  pleas  was,  that  there  was  every  reason  to 
hope  that  Mr.  Barnes  would  change  his  sentiments  after  he 
should  be  received.  He  therefore  recommended  to  him  not  to 
confess  that  he  was  the  author  of  the  sermon.  This,  he  said, 
would  put  it  out  of  the  power  of  the  minority  to  prosecute  him 
successfully  before  this  Presbytery,  and  his  reception  among 
us  would  prevent  a  prosecution  before  his  former  Presbytery. 
He  then  advised  him  to  refrain  from  preaching  the  views  of  his 
sermon  in  future,  and  all  would  be  well.  He  insisted  that  he 
would  change  his  sentiments;  and  gave  as  a  reason,  that  it 
could  be  said  of  none  but  a  fool  that  he  never  changed.  He 
insinuated  that  a  wise  man  was  very  apt  to  undergo  this  change 
before  he  reached  the  age  of  forty-five  years.  The  Presbytery 
were  very  much  indebted  to  the  Dr.  for  his  patience  in  instruct- 
ing them  thoroughly  on  this  subject;  for  without  such  instruc- 
tion, they  might  have  fallen  into  great  mistakes,  in  accounting 
for  the  marvellous  change  which  the  Dr.  himself  has  undergone. 
We  now  know  that  it  is  because  he  is  somewhere  about  forty- 
five,  and  is  no  fool.  It  seems,  however,  as  if  Dr.  Green,  unhappy 
man !  were  doomed  to  a  perpetual  minority.  This  is  one  parti- 
cular in  which  the  greatest  wisdom  of  antiquity  appeared  to  fall 
short  of  the  astonishing  improvements  of  the  present  day ;  for 
Solomon,  instead  of  making  versatility  the  test  of  wisdom,  said, 
"  Meddle  not  with  them  that  are  given  to  change."*  According 
to  the  Doctor's  view,  no  sound  Presbytery  or  congregation  ought 
ever  to  receive  a  sensible,  healthy,  orthodox  minister,  of  the  age 
of  44;  because  he  has  only  one  year  to  serve  in  the  covehanted 
ranks,  wJiile  the  remainder  of  a  long  life  must  be  spent  in  nar- 
rowing the  differences  between  such  renewed  men  as  Arians  and 
Universalists  on  the  one  hand,  and  Trinitarians  and  Calvinists 
on  the  other. 

10.  The  last  plea  which  I  need  mention,  is  Dr.  Ely's  bold 
assertion  of  Mr.  Barnes'  orthodoxy !  The  Doctor  still  professes 
Calvinistic  Presbyterianism  himself;  and  to  gain  credit  for  his 
pretensions,  he  follows  the  policy  of  the  French  ministry,  by 
occasionally  fitting  out  a  polemical  expedition,  in  the  Philadel- 
phian,  against  all  the  heretical  Algerines  that  infest  our  theolo- 
gical Mediterranean.  All  this  parade,  however,  is  evidently 
intended  only  to  make  poor  credulous  Calvinists  rally  round  his 
standard,  and  unite  themselves  to  his  increasing  corps  of  lenew- 
ed  men,  soon  to  consist  of  Arians,  Arminians,  Hopkinsians  and 
Universalists,  brought  lovingly  together,  by  his  art  and  indus- 
try in  narrowing  differences  between  irreconcileable  contradic- 

*  Prov.  xxiv.  21. 


tions.  When  the  deluded  Calvinists  in  this  heterogeneous  mass, 
have  been  amused  with  a  kw  skirmishes  against  a  foreign  ene- 
my, they  are  then  ready,  like  the  French  army,  to  follow  their 
apparently  patriotic  leader,  against  the  La  Fayette  of  our  Pres- 
byterial  minority,  and  those  who,  like  him,  advocate  the  libe- 
rality of  the  charter,  in  opposition  alike  to  despotic  preroga- 
tive, or  disorganizing  liberalism.  While  the  Dr.  is  hoisting 
Calvinistic  colours  for  himself  and  Mr.  Barnes,  he  acknowledges, 
in  the  Philadelphian,  what  every  one  knows  to  be  a  fact,  that 
the  enemies  of  our  church  and  constitution  proclaim,  "  confi- 
dently and  extensively,  in  the  language  of  exultation,  that  new 
divinity  has  gained  the  ascendancy  in  the  mother  Presbytery  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church."  It  is  true  that  such  old  divinity  men 
as  he  and  Dr.  M'Auley  and  Mr.  Sanford  deny  the  fact,  and  or- 
der them  to  hush  with  their  boasting ;  but  it  is  too  evident  that 
they  connive  at  it,  and  rejoice  with  Hopkinsians,  over  that  defeat 
which  Calvinistic  Presbyterianism  has  sustained  through  their 
defection.  But  Dr.  Ely  says,  if  Mr.  Barnes  "  is  not  a  Calvinist 
he  is  not  a  Hopkinsian."  It  can  be  proved,  however,  that  Mr. 
Barnes  has  been  known  as  a  Hopkinsian  in  Jersey;  it  was  this 
well  known  character  that  i^commended  him  in  Philadelphia ; 
he  has  called  himself  a  Hopkinsian ;  he  is  so  considered  by  all 
the  Hopkinsians  themselves ;  and  as  soon  as  the  sermon  was 
read  in  Presbytery,  Dr.  M'Auley  said  that  it  was  moderate  Hop- 
kinsianism.  Now  if  moderate  Hopkinsianism  deny  our  guilt  in 
Adam,  and  our  lost  and  helpless  condition  in  ourselves ;  if  it 
deny  the  imputation  of  sin  and  the  vicarious  satisfaction  of  the 
Saviour  in  enduring  the  penalty  of  the  law ;  if  it  deny  the  effi- 
cacy of  the  atonement,  and  dispense  with  gospel  justification, 

if^  moderate  Hopkinsianism  thus  subvert  the  souls  of  meu; 

and  remove  the  foundation  of  a  Christian's  hope,  what  must  be 
the  character  of  that  genuine,  unadulterated,  matured  Hopkin- 
sianism, between  which  and  Calvinism  Dr.  Ely  is  so  anxious  to 
narrow  existing  differences'? 

The  term  used  by  Dr.  M'Auley  reminds  us  that  there  are 
great  varieties  among  Hopkinsians,  some  moderate,  and  some 
immoderate.  Being  generally  intoxicated  with  a  conceit  of 
their  unlimited  powers,  and  considering  it  beneath  their  dignity 
to  walk  in  the  footsteps  of  the  flock,  eacii  choice  spirit  among 
them  feels  it  incumbent  upon  him  to  invent  a  religion  of  his 
own ;  at  least,  in  some  brilliant  feature  of  the  scheme.  Hence 
arose  the  account  which  Dr.  Green  gave  the  Presbytery  of 
Hopinsianism,  and  Emmonism,  and  Murdockism,  and  JVew  Ha- 
venism,  otherwise  called  Fitchism,  or  Taylorism.  Strictly 
speaking,  Hopkinsianism  is  a  very  moderate  heresy  compared 
with  these  others  ;  but  generally  speaking,  it  embraces  them 
all :  so  that  a  man  may  be  said  to  be  a  Hopkinsian  in  the  larger 
sense  of  the  word,  and  not  a  Hopkinsian  in  its  stricter  sense ; 
because,  he  is  far  worse  than  Dr.  Hopkins  himself  was.    Taking 


(         40         )     ^ 

advantage  of  this  ambiguity  of  language,  Dr.  Ely  denies  that 
Mr.  Barnes  is  a  Hopkinsian,  while,  in  reality,  he  is  much  worse 
than  Dr.  Hopkins  ever  was.  He  tells  us  that  "many  parts  of 
his  sermon  are  directly  opposed  to  the  peculiarities  inculcated 
by"  Dr.  Hopkins;  leaving  us  to  conclude  that  they  are  less 
offensive  ;  whereas  they  are  far  more  so.  Dr.  Hopkins  admitted 
that  Christ  bore  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  the  sinners  stead,  and 
that  the  penalty  and  curse  of  the  law  are  the  same  thing. 
Speaking  of  Christ's  effecting  the  atonement,  he  says,  "TAis  can 
be  done  by  nothing  but  suffering  the  penalty.^'  But  Mr.  Barnes 
denies  that  Christ  endured  the  penalty  of  the  law,  and  thus 
denies  the  atonement ;  Dr.  Hopkins  himself  being  judge,  and 
Dr.  Ely  being  witness,  in  the  9 1st  page  of  whose  Contrast  this 
testimony  is  found.  In  the  conclusion  of  his  Contrast,  he  calls 
Hopkinsians  heretics,  and  ranks  them  with  '•  Sahellians, 
Brians,  and  Socinians;^^  and  in  his  Theological  Review  he  de- 
fends our  Synod  for  guarding  the  churches  against  the  Hopkin- 
sian heresy ;  but  now  these  must  all  be  gathered  into  the  Cal- 
vin istic  fold  by  the  narrowing  of  differences. 

If  Mr.  Barnes  be  an  old  school  man,  where  was  the  necessity 
of  pleading  so  manfully  for  a  new  sort  of  liberality  in  interpret- 
ing creeds?  Where  was  the  necessity  of  writing  a  new  creed 
throughout,  insipid  enough  for  him  to  swallow?  Why  did  the 
creed-maker  himself  advise  Mr.  Barnes  not  to  confess  that  he 
was  the  author  of  the  sermon,  and  to  desist,  in  future,  from 
preaching  its  peculiar  views'?  If  he  were  already  orthodox,  why 
did  he  flatter  the  Presbytery  with  a  hope  of  his  changing'?  Did 
they  wish  him  to  exchange  his  orthodoxy  for  heterodoxy"? 

The  church  has  often  been  betrayed,  but  its  salvation  is  en- 
sured. May  we  and  ours  be  found  among  the  faithful  at  the 
coming  of  our  Lord. 


03=  In  part  of  the  edition,  in  the  Narrative,  the  following  error  escaped,  which  the  reader 
''  expreises." 


THE    END. 


c 


1 


^' 


